LGBT inclusion can tear congregations apart

[huckelberry]

That article from January 2023 is outdated. It says the 6% drop due to the LGBT policy was lower than expected.

Here's the updated information from January of this year:

https://www.churchleadership.com/leadin ... ist-church



If 25% of your church membership leaving due to a single issue isn't cause and effect, I'm not sure what is.

I think you're confused on the timeline of the church's position on gay marriage. In the OP, you said:

So I decided to look up what the deal was. The United Methodist church leadership decided to fully embrace LGBT marriage and pastors. And it’s cost them over 25% of their members over the last 5 years.

The United Methodist Church didn't decide to "fully embrace" LGBT marriage and pastors until May 2024. So, it's not possible that embracing LGBT marriage and pastors cost the UMC 25% of its members over the last five years.

A congregation choosing to disaffiliate from a congregation is not the same as tearing a congregation apart. And I've seen nothing other than your speculation that the state of the congregation you visited has anything to do with gay marriage or clergy.

Res Ipsa, I do not know all the facts on the ground but there are some general consideration to notice. Methodism does not have a strong man to say what what. They get together and discuss argue and perhaps fight.
Accepting LGBT marriage and pastors is a big change that many people did not support. There would have been fights over the idea for years. Many groups most against the idea likely withdrew to end the fight. Only their leaving would have made an official change possible. So I see a logic in the statement that the issue cost umc 25% of its member over the last five years.

[ceeboo]

Hey Double D

I had the pleasure of visiting a United Methodist church service this morning. All I knew about Methodism was that Joseph and his family had been nominal members before he created his own religion.

I was surprised to discover what seemed to be a small struggling congregation, and this was not in a very small town. The average age was probably 65, and people did not fill the pews of the large church like they would in a local Catholic Church.

The message of the pastor and his assistants was overwhelming: “everyone is loved and included period.” It was clear there was an overt undertone of LGBT acceptance. There was a planned lecture discussed about Jesus and Feminism. I really resonated with this progressive inclusive message, but I felt like this was out of place amongst the congregation of boomers.

So I decided to look up what the deal was. The United Methodist church leadership decided to fully embrace LGBT marriage and pastors. And it’s cost them over 25% of their members over the last 5 years.

This is very similar to the story of the Community of Christ. “Going woke” as conservatives critics call it, has profoundly negative consequences. It’s an unfortunate irony that following Christ like this ends up destroying Christian communities.

All of this to say, this is the kind of thing that reinforces the Mormon church’s hardline stance on LGBT issues. They feel like, and with good reason, that if they make major inclusive changes then they will endanger their religion. I think they may very well be correct about that, unfortunately.

An interesting OP and thread (I have read about half of the thread).

I wanted to add a few of my thoughts, from my personal perspective (Random thoughts in no particular order as I have many things going through my mind). These are my personal views - nobody need agree.

The following views require belief that the Bible is the Word of God - If you don't believe that it is, it can be offensive. I believe the Bible is offensive by design - It's a loud collision (a loud collision intended for the reader's ear) sounded by The Creator for the benefit of creation.

Christian churches are littered with sinners. I am very comfortable saying that the percentage of sinners is 100%.

Many churches (especially megachurches in the west - (Joel Osteen for example) have compromised the Word of God. This compromise or dilution is being done for a variety of reasons. In my opinion, pressure from those outside of the church and a desire to appear inclusive and tolerant are significant factors.

A whole bunch of people and organizations want a piece of Jesus (JW's, Mormons, Muslims) and/or want to depict Jesus as our personal genie or errand boy. Others want to manufacture an equal or balanced relationship with him (brother/friend) - while others suggest that believing in Jesus will bring you lots of cash and perfect health. He is none of those things. Jesus is Lord. Jesus is the Creator of all of creation - God almighty that became flesh and dwelt among us. The Alpha and Omega.

As it relates to sexual sin specifically, the Bible teaches that anything outside of one man and one woman in a marriage is sinful. This includes fornication and sex with someone other than the one you are married to. If you have been awake for more than 20 minutes in your life, you should pretty quickly understand how many Christians and Christian pastors have committed sexual sin.

Christian churches ought to be welcoming to all sinners (that would be everyone on the planet) but churches ought not affirm/applaud/celebrate sin of any flavor. To do so is to mislead and that is not loving at all. Loving, is to be truthful, even if it comes across as offensive.

The central message of the Bible = Jesus came to save sinners. (We are all sinners)

I'll stop there (I'm probably already going to get lambasted)

[I Have Questions]

The following views require belief that the Bible is the Word of God - If you don't believe that it is, it can be offensive. I believe the Bible is offensive by design - It's a loud collision (a loud collision intended for the reader's ear) sounded by The Creator for the benefit of creation.

Can you expand a bit on what you mean by saying the Bible is the Word of God? For instance, does that mean everything in it is correct, and believers in it should be complying with all its messages?

[ceeboo]

The following views require belief that the Bible is the Word of God - If you don't believe that it is, it can be offensive. I believe the Bible is offensive by design - It's a loud collision (a loud collision intended for the reader's ear) sounded by The Creator for the benefit of creation.

Can you expand a bit on what you mean by saying the Bible is the Word of God? For instance, does that mean everything in it is correct, and believers in it should be complying with all its messages?

I'm not sure what you mean, but I will try to offer a few examples.

Is a Bible believe Christian required to believe that creation was made in 6 literal days? No, there are many in-house debates discussions around various aspects of this - ex: day in Hebrew can mean a 24-hour period or a very long time.

Does a Bible believing Christain get to pick and choose what Scripture teaches based on what they like/prefer and reject what they don't? No, this is a common problem in modern Christianity. Christians need to accept all of it or none of it, in my opinion. Some of it can be very uncomfortable and unpopular.

Does that help or no?

[Res Ipsa]

I think you're confused on the timeline of the church's position on gay marriage. In the OP, you said:



The United Methodist Church didn't decide to "fully embrace" LGBT marriage and pastors until May 2024. So, it's not possible that embracing LGBT marriage and pastors cost the UMC 25% of its members over the last five years.

A congregation choosing to disaffiliate from a congregation is not the same as tearing a congregation apart. And I've seen nothing other than your speculation that the state of the congregation you visited has anything to do with gay marriage or clergy.

Res Ipsa, I do not know all the facts on the ground but there are some general consideration to notice. Methodism does not have a strong man to say what what. They get together and discuss argue and perhaps fight.
Accepting LGBT marriage and pastors is a big change that many people did not support. There would have been fights over the idea for years. Many groups most against the idea likely withdrew to end the fight. Only their leaving would have made an official change possible. So I see a logic in the statement that the issue cost umc 25% of its member over the last five years.

Thanks, Huck. My objection was to the simplistic causation, especially as applied to the congregation drumdude visited. The initial post portrayed the recent decision to remove the prohibition against gay clergy and gay marriage as tearing congregations apart. That's not what happened. In 2019, the majority of delegates to the denominations general conference voted to retain the prohibitions against gay clergy and marriage, and enacted harsh sanctions on any clergy that performed a wedding ceremony for two people of the same sex. The majority also adopted an exit plan for any congregation that wanted to disaffiliate because of the vote. So, it was not a decision to "fully embrace" LGBT marriage and pastors that triggered disaffiliation -- it was a decision to crack down on clergy in UMC congregations who were gay or who had performed same-sex marriages that triggered the disaffiliation.

One would expect that the relatively few congregations with gay pastors would be the ones who would disaffiliate, but it turns out that many congregations that supported the plan that was adopted in 2019 decided to form a new denomination of Methodists and so disaffiliated from the UMC.

I don't know how many congregations that disaffiliated were pro-gay marriage and pastors and how many were against. But the claim in the OP -- that fully embracing LGBT clergy and marriage caused the 25% disaffiliation -- just didn't happen. And we have no evidence that the makeup of the congregation that drumdude visited had anything to do with the decision earlier this year to eliminate the prohibitions.

[Res Ipsa]

Can you expand a bit on what you mean by saying the Bible is the Word of God? For instance, does that mean everything in it is correct, and believers in it should be complying with all its messages?

I'm not sure what you mean, but I will try to offer a few examples.

Is a Bible believe Christian required to believe that creation was made in 6 literal days? No, there are many in-house debates discussions around various aspects of this - ex: day in Hebrew can mean a 24-hour period or a very long time.

Does a Bible believing Christain get to pick and choose what Scripture teaches based on what they like/prefer and reject what they don't? No, this is a common problem in modern Christianity. Christians need to accept all of it or none of it, in my opinion. Some of it can be very uncomfortable and unpopular.

Does that help or no?

Hey Ceebs, what do you mean by "all of it?" Does that include every scripture in the Old Testament?

[drumdude]

Res Ipsa, I do not know all the facts on the ground but there are some general consideration to notice. Methodism does not have a strong man to say what what. They get together and discuss argue and perhaps fight.
Accepting LGBT marriage and pastors is a big change that many people did not support. There would have been fights over the idea for years. Many groups most against the idea likely withdrew to end the fight. Only their leaving would have made an official change possible. So I see a logic in the statement that the issue cost umc 25% of its member over the last five years.

Thanks, Huck. My objection was to the simplistic causation, especially as applied to the congregation drumdude visited. The initial post portrayed the recent decision to remove the prohibition against gay clergy and gay marriage as tearing congregations apart. That's not what happened. In 2019, the majority of delegates to the denominations general conference voted to retain the prohibitions against gay clergy and marriage, and enacted harsh sanctions on any clergy that performed a wedding ceremony for two people of the same sex. The majority also adopted an exit plan for any congregation that wanted to disaffiliate because of the vote. So, it was not a decision to "fully embrace" LGBT marriage and pastors that triggered disaffiliation -- it was a decision to crack down on clergy in UMC congregations who were gay or who had performed same-sex marriages that triggered the disaffiliation.

One would expect that the relatively few congregations with gay pastors would be the ones who would disaffiliate, but it turns out that many congregations that supported the plan that was adopted in 2019 decided to form a new denomination of Methodists and so disaffiliated from the UMC.

I don't know how many congregations that disaffiliated were pro-gay marriage and pastors and how many were against. But the claim in the OP -- that fully embracing LGBT clergy and marriage caused the 25% disaffiliation -- just didn't happen. And we have no evidence that the makeup of the congregation that drumdude visited had anything to do with the decision earlier this year to eliminate the prohibitions.

Based on the article you posted, the number of members leaving went from 6 percent at the beginning of 2023 to 25 percent at the beginning of this year.

That’s roughly 1/5 members leaving in a single year over this single issue.

I suppose it’s possible that this dramatic and fast reduction has had absolutely nothing to do with the lackluster attendance I noticed. Anything is possible.

[ceeboo]

I'm not sure what you mean, but I will try to offer a few examples.

Is a Bible believe Christian required to believe that creation was made in 6 literal days? No, there are many in-house debates discussions around various aspects of this - ex: day in Hebrew can mean a 24-hour period or a very long time.

Does a Bible believing Christain get to pick and choose what Scripture teaches based on what they like/prefer and reject what they don't? No, this is a common problem in modern Christianity. Christians need to accept all of it or none of it, in my opinion. Some of it can be very uncomfortable and unpopular.

Does that help or no?

Hey Ceebs, what do you mean by "all of it?" Does that include every scripture in the Old Testament?

Hey RI,

Yes, Old Testament included (flood, mauling bear, talking snake, horrific wars, Noah, Adam and Eve, talking snake - All of it)

[drumdude]

Hey Ceebs, what do you mean by "all of it?" Does that include every scripture in the Old Testament?

Hey RI,

Yes, Old Testament included (flood, mauling bear, talking snake, horrific wars, Noah, Adam and Eve, talking snake - All of it)

I think the example you cited, making days a metaphor for however much time you need, is a technique that can be used to arbitrarily pick and choose what to follow and what to ignore.

For example many churches cite a specific verse to justify no music being allowed at church. Paul says women cannot teach at church. Tons of churches ignore these, but cling to the equally unimportant anti LGBT verses.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks, Huck. My objection was to the simplistic causation, especially as applied to the congregation drumdude visited. The initial post portrayed the recent decision to remove the prohibition against gay clergy and gay marriage as tearing congregations apart. That's not what happened. In 2019, the majority of delegates to the denominations general conference voted to retain the prohibitions against gay clergy and marriage, and enacted harsh sanctions on any clergy that performed a wedding ceremony for two people of the same sex. The majority also adopted an exit plan for any congregation that wanted to disaffiliate because of the vote. So, it was not a decision to "fully embrace" LGBT marriage and pastors that triggered disaffiliation -- it was a decision to crack down on clergy in UMC congregations who were gay or who had performed same-sex marriages that triggered the disaffiliation.

One would expect that the relatively few congregations with gay pastors would be the ones who would disaffiliate, but it turns out that many congregations that supported the plan that was adopted in 2019 decided to form a new denomination of Methodists and so disaffiliated from the UMC.

I don't know how many congregations that disaffiliated were pro-gay marriage and pastors and how many were against. But the claim in the OP -- that fully embracing LGBT clergy and marriage caused the 25% disaffiliation -- just didn't happen. And we have no evidence that the makeup of the congregation that drumdude visited had anything to do with the decision earlier this year to eliminate the prohibitions.

Based on the article you posted, the number of members leaving went from 6 percent at the beginning of 2023 to 25 percent at the beginning of this year.

That’s roughly 1/5 members leaving in a single year over this single issue.

I suppose it’s possible that this dramatic and fast reduction has had absolutely nothing to do with the lackluster attendance I noticed. Anything is possible.

Again, you are conflating the decision of a congregation to disaffiliate from a denomination with the composition of a single congregation. You also don't seem to recognize that a decision in May of this year cannot be the cause of disaffiliation that happened prior to the event. Again, the order of events was: (1) the delegates voted to retain the prohibition on same sex marriage and gay clergy and to crack down on gay clergy and clergy who performed same-sex marriages; (2) 25% of congregations disaffiliated; (3) the majority of the remaining congregations voted to drop the prohibitions. You've provided zero evidence that the change in May of this year had any impact on the congregation you visited.