This excellent article written some 22 years ago, recognize that a split was not only possible but likely by the United Methodist Church. I assume they're going to have to change the title of the church to be more accurate â
William J. Abraham wrote: .... It has long been agreed that United Methodism is a coalition of diverse conviction and opinion, having been formed under the banner of theological pluralism. Church leaders took the view in the 1970s that the core identity of United Methodism, if there was one at all, was located in commitment to the Methodist Quadrilateral (Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience), and that this not only permitted but in fact sanctioned and fostered doctrinal pluralism.
Doctrinal pluralism, despite its intellectual incoherence, will work so long as something akin to Liberal Protestantism is held by the leadership of the church and so long as those who are not Liberal Protestants acquiesce....
https://tinyurl.com/jekd4zb (United Methodists at the End of the Mainline)
Julie Zauzmer wrote: .... American Methodists are more conservative than other mainline Protestants. Pew Research Center found in 2014 that 54 percent lean Republican and 35 percent lean Democrat, a significantly more Republican tilt than other mainline denominations. Fifteen percent of Methodists describe themselves as âliberal,â compared with 22 percent of mainline Presbyterians, 24 percent of mainline Lutherans and 29 percent of Episcopalians.... .... Conservative leaders said they realized they could not compel their peers to agree with their understanding of biblical morality.
âSome would say we should hold on to them to help steer them in the right direction, but you canât keep anyone a prisoner,â said Mark Tooley, of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, which advocates for biblical orthodoxy. âThe good news is, in the end, everyone is going to end up in a church where they want to be.â
excerpt from,"United Methodist Church is expected to split over gay marriage, fracturing the nationâs third-largest denomination"
It is wrong to be in politics for a church no matter if they are liberal or conservative
Emma Green wrote: ...I did acknowledge, that the Democrats are riding on a partisan horse here. They just vehemently hate Donald Trump. And theyâve been trying from day one to get him out of office. Thereâs no question about that.
But that doesnât take away from the fact that what they discovered is actually true. Thatâs the thing thatâs disappointing about my evangelical and conservative friends. They just wonât admit it. They just wonât say it. They just say, âItâs partisan.â Well, yeah. Itâs partisan. But this partisan effort happened to uncover something that was really bad.
The fact that not a single Republican, and none of my evangelical, conservative friends, has been able to admit that strikes me as a deep and serious problem.
Iâm sorry, Emma. Iâm going to start preachingâ.... I donât think the Republican Party or the Democratic Party are exemplars of moral virtue. As most commentators have noted, our country is in a really deeply troubling state when it comes to ethical and moral leadership. Iâm certainly not going to say, âOh, all the politicians are really ethical and Donald Trump isnât.â No. But he happens to be the president of the United States....[Mark Galli]
https://tinyurl.com/rbppkke [How Trump Lost an Evangelical S
Paula White on the government dole. This means you are involuntarily supporting a heretic
At least we aren't directly supporting Beth Mooređ
Rob Boston wrote: Itâs worth noting that Whiteâs theology has plenty of critics in the Christian community. Russell D. Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and hardly a liberal, has bluntly stated, âPaula White is a charlatan and recognized as a heretic by every orthodox Christian, of whatever tribe.â
excerpt from, "TV Preacher Paula White Secures Official Perch At White House"
While it is true that Mr. Trump practices
https://tinyurl.com/sevgtg8 ((4) Practical atheism.)-- "It has nothing at all to do with belief. Indeed it accepts the affirmations of theism. It has reference wholly to the mode of life. It is to live as though there was no God."
He at least is giving part of his salary helping to control the opioid addiction problem, is Mizz White doing the sameâď¸
An interesting article that I just ran across todayâ
Besides the Bilderberg Society the authoress describes four other secret societies.
Jessica Pearce Rotundi wrote: .... While not strictly a secret society like the Illuminati or freemasons, BilderbergâsÂ high-profile attendeesâprevious guests have includedÂ Bill Clinton,Â Margaret Thatcher,Â Angela Merkel, Tony Blair andÂ Henry Kissingerâand its use of theÂ Chatham House RuleÂ blocking attendees from sharing what actually happens in meetings gives the group an air of mystery. Journalists are barred from reporting on it. Meeting minutes are not released....
The level of secrecy surrounding the Bilderberg Meeting have given rise to many rumors, including unproven theories that Bilderberg attendees are behind the creation of the European Union, the invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Serbia, reports theÂ New York Times.Â Conspiracy theorists have painted the group as plotting aÂ new world order....
https://tinyurl.com/wfgg7rt (Five Secret Societies That Have Remained Shrouded in Mystery)
Peter Beinart wrote: .... Trump, as is his wont, has responded with bluster: âIran will be held fully responsible for lives lost, or damage incurred, at any of our facilities,â he tweeted on Tuesday. âThey will pay a very BIG PRICE! This is not a Warning, it is a Threat.â The Pentagon announced plans to send in reinforcements. But with each escalation, Trumpâs predicament worsens. His confidantes insist that he canât afford a warâwhich would likely boost oil prices and damage the economyâespecially in an election year. Yet he also canât pursue real diplomacy, at least not without provoking a confrontation with the GOPâs hawkish foreign-policy elite. Heâs caught between his desire to avoid being like George W. Bush and his desire to avoid being like Barack Obama.
So, absent a revolution that replaces the Islamic Republic with a more pliant regime, heâs at Iranâs mercy....
https://tinyurl.com/rlyn2lf (The Embassy Attack Revealed Trumpâs Weakness)
https://tinyurl.com/v5alav2 (Iranâs Khamenei shrugs off Trump threat to retaliate over Iraq embassy violence)
If they wanted to complain about someone they should have went after Paula White who is now an official in the Trump Administration. â
Wikipedia wrote: Southern Baptist theologian and ethicist Russell D. Moore said that "Paula White is a charlatan and recognized as a heretic by every orthodox Christian, of whatever tribe." Michael Horton, a professor of theology at Westminster Seminary California, wrote in early January 2017 that White represented a heretical movement and that her then-upcoming address at President Trump's inauguration was helping to introduce heresy into mainstream public life. Horton addressed White's alleged denial of the Trinity and the prosperity gospel's position that Christ died on the cross not for the forgiveness of humankind but to rescue people from financial hardship. Other allegations of heresy have emerged among conservative Christians, such as that White has denied the Trinity,...
excerpt from, "Criticism and allegations of heresy"
Considering the people that Trump has surrounded himself with, Beth Moore has taken the logical, Christian position
Well, Beth Moore outed as a person of intelligence and observation, who would have thoughtââ at least she's not a Paula Whiteâ
I wonder how many of you read the second editorial from Christianity Today on the topic of Trump?
Timothy Dalrymple wrote: .... President Donald Trump would have you believe we are âfar left.â Others have said we are not Bible-believing Christians. Neither is true. Christianity Today is theologically conservative. We are pro-life and pro-family. We are firm supporters of religious liberties and economic opportunity for men and women to exercise their gifts and create value in the world. We believe in the authority of Scripture. We are also a global ministry. We travel the world and see the breadth and depth of what God is doing through his people all around the planet. It is beautiful, and breathtaking, and immense. The global Body of Christâand the community of evangelicalsâis vastly larger than our domestic political squabbles. But partly on behalf of that global body, we can no longer stay silent....
excerpt from, "The Flag in the Whirlwind: An Update from CTâs President"
QUOTE][AUTHOR]Barnes' New Testament Notes[/AUTHOR]Matthew 5 âVerses 38-41.Â An eye for an eye, etc. This command is found inÂ Exodus 21:24Â Leviticus 24:20Â Deuteronomy 19:21. In these places it was given as a ruleÂ to regulate the decisions of judges. They were to take eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, and to inflict burning for a burning. As aÂ judicial ruleÂ it is not unjust. Christ finds no fault with the rule as applied toÂ magistrates, and does not take upon himself to repeal it. But, instead of confining it to magistrates, the Jews had extended it toÂ privateÂ conduct, and made it the rule by which to takeÂ revenge. They considered themselves justified, by this rule, to inflict the same injury on others that they had received. Against this our Saviour remonstrates. He declares that the law had no reference to private revenge; that it was given only to regulate the magistrate; and that their private conduct was to be regulated by different principles. The general principle which he laid down was, that we are notÂ to resist evil; that is, as it is in the Greek, not to set ourselves against an evil person who is injuring us....[/QUOTE]excerpt from, "Matthew 5:38"
Barnes' New Testament Notes wrote: .... But even this general direction is not to be pressed too strictly. Christ did not intend to teach that we are to see our families murdered, or to be murdered ourselves, rather than to make resistance. The law of nature, and all laws, human and Divine, have justified self-defence, whenÂ lifeÂ is in danger. It cannot surely be the intention to teach that a father should sit by coolly, and see his family butchered by savages, and not be allowed to defend them. Neither natural nor revealed religion ever did, or ever can, teach this doctrine.should be done us, as is evident from the example of the Saviour himself. SeeÂ Jn 18:23. The second evil mentioned is, where a man isÂ litigious, and determined to take all the advantage the law can give him; following us with vexatious and expensive lawsuits. Our Saviour directs us, rather than to imitate him--rather than to contend with a revengeful spirit in courts of justice, and to perpetual broils--so take a trifling injury, and yield to him....
This is what Albert Barnes thinks of this idea, and I being a believer in self-defense, go along with it at the present time.