Church splits are coming. Preached to about this. (UMC Related)

I think independent congregations such as Church of Christ have had it right all along. No governing body.

Yes

quote:

---

He doesn't spend time on the LBGTQ beliefs, rather talks about the breaking of the hierarchy and the groups' disdain for female in the Church

---

We attend quite a large UMC and they have had women clergy.

I’ll be watching to see what comes from this.

Yep, Church of Christ is what I grew up in, and it is where I've always felt most comfortable. The most important thing is to always stick to scripture, which a lot of denominations have failed to do. But also, not having that almost corporate feeling about the Church you attend, is something I consider a plus.

I would offer the following suggestion:

When you find yourself in a church body that is going astray and getting ready to split, the split isn’t the disease...it’s the symptom. The more important question is what illness allowed things to come to the point that split was inevitable?

Baptists are notorious for splitting. In the past, most of those splits haven’t occurred over issues of doctrine or morality, though I expect that the SBC will live through a major split sometime in the next decade over issues of doctrine and morality as it’s current leadership slowly seeks to drive the SBC down the same SJW warrior road the UMC went down decades ago.

Someone here observed that if the world was more like the church rather than the church being like the world such things wouldn’t happen. This hints around the issue.

Historically, Christianity was unified for its first millennium. This unity was broken by the Roman Church as the bishop of that church sought greater earthly power and changed the historic confession of faith of the Christian church going on to found the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 A.D.

Was that first split so different than the splits we see today occurring over struggles for earthly power, property, pensions, and attempts to change Christian morality or doctrine to be seeker sensitive or culturally relevant?

So I would recommend getting into your time traveling delorean and going back in time to find that original church, which still exists today.

LINK

I did, and you won’t believe what is waiting for you when you get out of that gullwing door in 400 A.D...but this recommendation comes with a warning, This isn’t feminized Jesus-is-my-boyfriend Churchianity. This isn’t a transactional Jack in the Box Jesus who you can compartmentalize into an hour Sunday morning. If that is what you want, this isn’t the Jesus you are looking for. This is a demanding, transformational, warrior’s faith where you accomplish your sanctification as you pick up your cross and struggle up that hill.

quote:

---

This unity was broken by the Roman Church as the bishop of that church sought greater earthly power

---

The Bishop of Rome always had that power and it was acknowledged by the Bishop of Constantinople as well as the rest of Christendom going back to the beginning. There are numerous historical examples that can be cited. This whole "first among equals" BS was started by the Church in Constantinople because that particular bishop sought greater earthly power.

There's a reason why the great Sees of the Eastern Church, including Constantinople, fell to Islamic conquest while Rome remained untouched. I also don't find it a big coincidence that the greatest heresies in the history of the Church (Gnosticism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism) all started in the East.

quote:

---

The Bishop of Rome always had that power and it was acknowledged by the Bishop of Constantinople as well as the rest of Christendom going back to the beginning. There are numerous historical examples that can be cited. This whole "first among equals" BS was started by the Church in Constantinople because that particular bishop sought greater earthly power.

---

No it wasn’t. Even your own Pope Gregory denounced such things. What you’re referencing is the fake history.

quote:

---

There's a reason why the great Sees of the Eastern Church, including Constantinople, fell to Islamic conquest while Rome remained untouched. I also don't find it a big coincidence that the greatest heresies in the history of the Church (Gnosticism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism) all started in the East.

---

That’s a pretty pointless argument. Many cities have come and gone, and yet Orthodoxy perseveres. As far as these issues arising in the east, four of the five patriarchates were in the east. Today, Orthodoxy is free not only of those issues but also of the innovations within Roman Catholicism of the second millennium of Christian history.

But really this discussion belongs somewhere besides this thread.

The Council of Chalcedon is a really, really bad example to use to try and prove the pope is the head of the Church (at least in the sense modern Roman Catholics believe). Take a look at the acts and extracts and you’ll see why.

Narrow is the way and there are few who find it.

While there may have been some hope of reunification under someone like John Paul or Benedict, there’s zero hope for it under Francis.

I’m not going to derail this thread by further discussion of Roman Catholic propaganda. If you like your Pacahamama, you can keep your Pachamama.

quote:

---

My understanding of the Wesley Covenant Association is that they actually believe in gender/racial equality and focus on the scripture.

---

Well the Bible does say the woman’s role is to serve her husband...