United Methodist Volunteers in Mission was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 10 June 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into United Methodist Church. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Arminianism / Methodism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Arminianism (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by Methodism work group (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

2002–2011

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Deacon#Methodism / Wesleyanism|deacons]] The anchor (#Methodism / Wesleyanism) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

I shuffled around the Clergy section to make it more organized. I shifted piece on Women's Ordination to the history part of the section and made the history and Women's ordination titles smaller. Then I ordred the clergy offices in descending order, and I have no qualms with switching the order but this seems reasonable. I then divided and rewrote the sections on Deacons and Elders since they were full of irrelevant information and many grammatical errors. No citation is added until we get the new Book of Discipline, although all material is fromt the 2008 version.

I think the section is now cleaner and more organized. If you have any issues with my changes, please let me know.--Revmqo (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am removing the photo again. Please review WP policies on photos before you reinsert the photo. And put forth an argument for why it should be included on the talk page. Quite simply, based on your history as noted above regarding Glendale UMC, it appears that you are inserting the photo because it is your POV. If you want to put a photo relevant to the ordination of women, then how about a photo of Maud Jensen or someone relevant to the issue at hand. Revmqo (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If that is your argument, then why is it any more appropriate that Foundry UMC, United Methodist Church in Ceylon, Minnesota (2011), Metropolitan United Methodist Church, Detroit, Michigan, and Christ United Methodist Church in Rochester, Minnesota are included - as they have no more validity in the section they are in - at least Glendale, with a female minister has that description in the section of ordination in relation to women (which is where I meant to place it the first time). The pictures (which should rotate to keep the interest of the page up) where currently there are two churches both of stone and three of the four look like large churches - maybe some variety could be in order and acceptable. And yes, I go to this church - just spreading the word about us as anyone should - and I work for United Methodist Communications so I work for representing the denomination as best (and as whole) as possible. Ska8706 (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The photos you point out do violate WP:PERTINENCE and I have removed them. Revmqo (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, you should learn more about WP. Second, as an employee of the denomination's communications division, your objectivity can easily be called into doubt. Third, if you have a problem with the other photos, then remove them -- but be prepared to explain. Fourth, your admission that you attend this church is enough to prove that your motives for posting the photo into the article are again suspect. Bottom line - WP discourages each action you have taken! Revmqo (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read WP:PERTINENCE Revmqo (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First off, any person should want to have their church in the spotlight (as the other pictures on this page do help with) It's just a picture of a church (a UM church on the UMC page) - that is all. I was only being open and honest with you about that. Sorry for that "suspect" admission. Maybe some kindness in explanation, rather than accusatory tone would help conversation. Its not like this was trying to get some random business placed on a page it had nothing to do with or something negative on here. Ska8706 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, you need to read WP policies. Even for how to reply in a discussion. I removed your insertion and gave the reason in my edit summary. You reverted my removal based on your own POV rather than entering a discussion or following WP guidelines. Before you start throwing around comments like "rather than accusatory tone would help conversation, maybe you should take a look at your own actions or pause to make sure you understand your actions. Revmqo (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, I am not an experienced contributor to Wikipedia so pardon any lack of convention on my part. I find the first sentence, describing the UMC as "both mainline Protestant and Evangelical" is both contradictory and confusing. The article on Mainline Protestant contrasts Mainline Protestant with evangelical, fundamentalist, and/or charismatic Protestant denominations, so it is difficult to understand how they can be both. I do not, by the way, have any disagreement with these divisions as provided in the Mainline Protestant article. In general, the term "evangelical" (either with a capitalized or not) is confusing. As a statement of the history and foundations of the UMC, it is indisputably Evangelical in the historical context. However, in the contexts by which the term more often heard today -- usually sociopolitical or theological rather than historical -- the term does not resonate as an accurate description of United Methodists in general. Even the article on Evangelicalism suffers this confusion as some references lump Methodists in, or out of, their definition of Evangelical. Research from the Pew Center shows a discontinuity, with their Center for the Study of Global Christianity, in this paper http://www.pewforum.org/files/2011/12/Christianity-fullreport-web.pdf counting "as evangelical all members of denominations that belong to a national, regional or global evangelical council" (clearly United Methodists do participate) along with the centrality of the "born again" experience (clearly not a universal theme in United Methodism today) while other Pew Center research such as this paper http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf delineate Methodists, as a Mainline Protestant church, distinctly apart from Evangelical Protestant churches. One could say that my original argument is with the Evangelicalism article because the it does not sufficiently help the ambiguity of the term. At any rate, I do not think the term, without clarification of the specific meaning intended, does not provide an accurate description of the United Methodist Church, and propose that it simply be changed to ..."mainline Protestant." (period) Mrjlal (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

good points and I tried to fix the opening. The term "evangelical" changes meaning over time. In the 21st century it is closest to Southern Baptists. In the 19th century it was based in Methodism. Even today the Missouri Synod uses "evangelical" as part of its name --as a carryover from 17th century German usage. Rjensen (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The section on social issues, discussing issues from abortion to human sexuality, should reflect the official views within the denomination. On some issues, there is clear division and, therefore, the content should provide space for the positions of multiple parties involved in denominational action. Additionally, subjective language, such as using terms like 'transgenderism', not used or accepted by the trans* community itself, should be avoided in my opinion. SeminarianJohn (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In particular, one or more editors are only providing sources related to conservative perspectives on human sexuality when a plurality of views are officially present and reflected on a national, judicial, conference, and congregational level. Different perspectives should be offered.SeminarianJohn (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for starting this discussion on the talk page, User:SeminarianJohn. I've restored your addition about the retired bishop performing a same-sex union although I've used the wording from the source and have attributed it to the publisher. You can see that here. Since there are many clergymen in the Council of Bishops and Revd Talbert is a retired one, I personally do not think it belongs in the article but have readded it since you seem to value it being there. I don't object to your addition about some conferences opposing the BOD's position either. However, this should be added in the proper place, not where the BOD's position is being discussed in the first paragraph. If you will note, it is already present in the second paragraph, starting at the line that states "One Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, the New York Annual Conference, has voiced disagreement..." I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 08:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the feedback and for helping. As a newer editor, I do appreciate the assistance and discussion to look for the most accurate information. The article on the bishop could go and, maybe if you and others think it could matter, a sentence could be given to the few examples of other events that can be held in UMC congregations although marriages cannot be performed at this time? What do you think? Again, thank you for being understanding and helping a newer user! Your patience is well received here.SeminarianJohn (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:SeminarianJohn, of course, I am glad to assist and discuss in order to produce the best article. I don't mind leaving the statement about the retired bishop who performed a same sex union in this article since the UMC felt that it was important enough to report. My concern with including one or two churches that have done something like allowing a gay couple to propose in the chancel area is that it gives the impression that these events widely occur and are ecclesiastically permissible in lieu of the fact that the UMC does not marry same sex couples. While one or two exceptions (out of the hundreds of thousands of UM congregations that exist) may have made Buzzfeed or the DailyMail, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and furthermore, 99% of United Methodist Churches around the globe do not offer alternatives for same sex couples who cannot get married in United Methodist parish churches. Unless an academic text or major source discusses these things (i.e. not Buzzfeed), it's best that we leave them out of the article for now. The article already contains a whole paragraph devoted to clergy and conferences who oppose the BOD wording and generally support what they term full inclusion of LGBT individuals in the Church. My opinion is that this is sufficient. I hope this helps. Cheerio, Anupam^Talk 09:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right that it is not for news. I think I can both can see your point and agree with much of it. However, there seem to be a lot of 'news' examples of individual ministers who were defrocked for performing same-sex marriages back in 1987. Certainly, those isolated and spurious examples of going as far as to defrock someone do not amount to the same level as the national and regional conferences making decisions. I think the removal of those old references, if isolated examples of churches that do offer alternatives cannot be included, should at least be considered. It just seems one-sided for the page to give individual examples of ministers punished but not of the individual examples of churches that support it. Also, I think the 15 Conferences that voted for resolutions asking to allow gay marriages should be considered for inclusion as UMC.org highlighted it twice.^[1][2] SeminarianJohn (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the United Methodist Church, the Judicial Council serves as the denomination's judicial branch of government whereas the General Conference serves as its legislative branch. As such, the national defrocking cases, which are addressed by the United Methodist Church's highest court system, can hardly be termed spurious and isolated. Rather, they are official rulings by the international denomination, which this article is about. Inclusion of these items, therefore, is not one-sided, as it reflects the enforcement of the denomination's official position; these cases, which received international coverage, were reported in reliable and respected secondary sources, such as The New York Times and UMNS. This is quite unlike a story reported in Buzzefeed about a boyfriend proposing to his partner in the chancel area of a local parish church. With your inclusion of the Connectional Table statement, which dissents from the denomination's official position, balance has been made, especially since that isn't the official denominational view and is non-binding; as such WP:DUE should be applied here. Now, with regard to your thought to add information about 15 conferences that voted, I do not see that in the source you provided. Could you add the sentence from the original source here in the talk page that you want reflected in the article? I look forward to hearing your thoughts. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I will although the sources contain a lot of quotes from each conference. Also, the Rev. Frank Schaeefer was re-instated by the judicial system^[3] and I think, then, since we're including people who have been defrocked we should include pastors who performed gay marriages who have been kept as ordained ministers. So, that I think is quite necessary if other individual examples of defrocking are being shown then examples of re-instatement by the judicial system should be shown too. Here is one example of the many quotes that state with clarity the outcome of those 15 conferences voting to support gay marriage. "United Methodists from Washington and the northern panhandle of Idaho approved legislation supporting the Marriage Equality Act" and "California-Pacific, California-Nevada, Rocky Mountain, Desert Southwest and Oregon-Idaho conferences recommitted to their "We Will Not Be Silent" resolution made by the Western Jurisdiction in 2000 and updated in 2004". So, the whole Western Jurisdiction jointly made that support in an official resolution in their book of resolutions updated twice. As for the reference to Buzzed, I do not think I used it, or if I did I probably meant to use another source, but it was filmed and reported by DailyMail, Huffingtonpost, Metro UK, and others. Now, I do not think it needs to be included but I think something should be included about the more than 761 congregations that have officially and publicly affirmed gay marriage in some way. I added the decision from the Judicial Council to re-instate Rev. Schaefer, but of course help phrase it in a way to better fit the style of the page if that is necessary. The JC also made a ruling against mandatory penalties against clergy.^[4] SeminarianJohn (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The case about Fran Shaefer was a publicized case and as such, I have no objection to your inclusion of it in the article. With regard to conferences, the article currently lists two that oppose the BOD and two that support it, stating:

One Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, the New York Annual Conference, has voiced disagreement with the denomination's official stance on homosexuality and "announced it would not consider sexual orientation in evaluating a clergy candidate".[94] In addition, the Baltimore-Washington Conference of the UMC approved the appointment of an openly partnered lesbian to the diaconate.[95] At the same time, the Alabama-West Florida Conference" passed resolutions upholding the denomination’s rules on homosexuality" and the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference "approved a resolution that urges the conference to demand clergy accountability to the Discipline’s 'rules of our common covenant,' and to call upon clergy to challenge those rules only 'through legitimate channels of holy conferencing, rather than breaking that covenant.'"[96]

These are good examples that provide the two differing perspectives present in the United Methodist Church. To continue to add more quotes about the views of Annual Conferences is unnecessary in an already large article. If we list the views of 15 Annual Conferences, we would have to also list the views of 118 Annual Conferences who uphold the BOD. You write that a total of 761 congregations have officially affirmed gay unions in some way; there are a total of 43,621 congregations in the United Methodist Church. As such, 761 is a negligible number, unless we also want to include the rest that are not (a much greater number of churches is affiliated with Good News/Confessing Movement, but this information is not present in the article). Since all this information would be excessive and out of scope of the article, which discusses the denomination as a whole, I personally support leaving the article as it stands now. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 00:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think to say 'negligible' is subjective and those are only those that have officially registered as affirming congregations. It does not include the congregations whose delegates voted for those conferences. I think, as you said, including Rev. Schaefer and the mandatory penalties rejection is good and I agree that as long as at least two from each side are shown, that should be okay. On congregations, 32,000 of those 44,000 are in the United States and 60% of US United Methodists support gay marriage.^[5] I would not include that reference, as it is of lay opinions, but I just wanted to provide that here. Thanks for the back and forth feedback. I think both of our research has made the sub-section more succinct and as accurate as possible. I will agree now that the article is okay as is for now. Should you also agree that we can include both RMN and "GoodNews/Confessing Movement" numbers, I would be supportive of acknowledging the number of congregations/communities affiliated with each. But, I will agree that the section is okay as is. SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the friendly dialogue. I appreciate your efforts and think that both of us have improved the article through our efforts together. I'm sure we will be speaking again as this issue continues to develop in the years to come. Best wishes, Anupam^Talk 00:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found a UMC.org source, per your suggestion, during my research on the topic, although it took some time and reading!, that describes what pastors can and cannot do. It states that pastors "cannot preside over the wedding ceremony" which includes any part of the vows, rings, or document portion, but "clergy can assist same-gender couples in finding other venues for their weddings; provide pre-marital counseling; attend the ceremony; read Scripture, pray or offer a homily".^[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeminarianJohn (talk • contribs) 09:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These edits added about abortion policy. Then an i.p. editor made a small change and reverted themself, as if to hide the abortion-related edit from being apparent on watchlists. I have no opinion about the abortion policy edit myself, but think more eyeballs should be reviewing this. --doncram —Preceding undated comment added 20:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to request to regular editors of this article to consider a new section or subsection that discusses the titles used to describe a Methodist in the hierarchy of the church. I came to this article because I saw someone mentioned in an obituary presiding over a Methodist funeral service as "Rev. [name]" yet as I write this the word Reverend" doesn't even appear in the article! Here is a good research article I found to help you compose the new material: What is the proper way to address a Methodist minister?. Thanks. Please mark this "Done" when and if accomplished. 5Q5 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have deleted the following sentence:

The founder of the Methodist Church, the Rev. John Wesley recognized none as Methodists who did not recognize the named Standards of Doctrine.

The current UMC Standards of Doctrine are from the 1968 merger. It is thus impossible that Wesley insisted that Methodists follow them. The only 'standards' Wesley would have recognised were the Articles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayer as revised for American use in 1784. It is dubious he would have insisted that Methodists adhere to his collected sermons. It must be noted that Wesley remained an Anglican priest his whole life and deemed Methodism a movement within the Church of England, even though this was not the end result in the USA or Great Britain. --IACOBVS (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be very helpful if someone could build a table showing yearly membership totals over the past several decades, similar to those in the articles on the Presbyterian Church and its sub-denominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sanity Inspector (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://www.gcfa.org/media/1614/2017-annual-conference-membership-and-attendance-us.pdf

Maybe sombody can change it. I don't wan't to mess it up. Shai-Huludim (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There been several articles for a while (a year to couple months ago) about a possible schism by its Liberal/left-wing and Moderate members, with over the "Traditional plan" was approved of adopting against Same-Sex marriage. Chad The Goatman (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, yes, I know, but there's text in source material which the church has been using for years which serves as a sound basis for argument against a schism, and the United Methodist Church has done such a good job of sticking together despite a wide range of differences of opinion on a number of subjects that it's silly for the church to be splitting over this now and silly to buy into the idea. Besides, it's supposedly not even set in stone yet. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess, but there a least couple articles and videos on YouTube, has seems a least there few semi-ex-United Methodist churches in some parts of the US to go as Nondenominational Methodism for now, in protest of their decision. Chad The Goatman (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I've heard a bit about that, but I've also heard of a number of United Methodist churches which exhibit Evangelical behaviors and profess an Evangelical stance on baptism, but still operate under the United Methodist banner. You think maybe they were just messing around with the idea of the church sticking together? It seems to me like if you have an identity crisis, you better not yield your ground until you figure out what exactly you are. 216.255.101.58 (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Every news article that is released in the media with respect to the United Methodist Church's stance on homosexuality should not enter this article. The section, before I trimmed some unnecessary and undue information was 23,878 characters! The section about "Homosexuality" should summarize the UMC's official stance on the issue rather than be a comprehensive list of everyone who dissents from it. There is already an article about Homosexuality and Methodism, in which more information can be added. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are you doing? The hard line your taking isn't helping social relations at all. The church as a whole is supposed to be about people doing their best to get along in their worship of Christ. Too much focus on differences resulting from one aspect of a minority of the population is going to further inspire division, rather than present things as they are. To that end, it's not really an accurate representation of matters to throw out articles in favor of inclusion just because things appear to be heading in a certain direction. If this was the subject of an impartial hearing, those arguments in favor of inclusion would find this unfair, as only one side of the story is represented, and since the article is supposed to be neutral, both possibilities for the future need to be represented, especially as the matter isn't settled yet and there's a strong case against the split. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you wish to include every news article that shows dissent, do you also wish to include every statement from Good News Magazine on the topic? That wouldn't make sense, would it? The purpose of the article is to educate the public what The United Methodist Church teaches about human sexuality, not to be a comprehensive list of grievances. The article, as it stands, already has seven large paragraphs devoted to the 'Homosexuality' issue, making it longer than the section about 'Worship and liturgy'. More information actually needs excised per WP:DUE. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 04:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Tyrekecorrea, you have changed the title of the section under the "Social Issues" from 'Homosexuality' to 'LGBT people', despite the fact that the main article is titled Homosexuality and Methodism. Could you explain why you have done this when the United Methodist Church's Book of Discipline makes reference to 'homosexuality' and does not mention 'LGBT people'? Specifically, it states:

¶ 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.

Please kindly self-revert. I also wish to hear User:StAnselm's input as he the original title restored on the main article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, "Homosexuality" is far superior for the reasons mentioned. StAnselm (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreement is being brokered for a vote in May over a new conservative Methodist spin-off that would not be open and affirming of LGBTQ+ marriage/ordination. Suggesting an addition to the page referencing: https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/01/03/united-methodist-church-is-expected-split-over-gay-marriage-disagreement-fracturing-nations-third-largest-denomination/— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.149.229 (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And from a primary source "United Methodist Traditionalists, Centrists, Progressives & Bishops sign agreement aimed at separation". Bishop News | Ministries. The United Methodist Church Council of Bishops. January 3, 2020. Archived from the original on January 3, 2020.Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noting that it may not just be a conservative separation, but affirming instead, and there could be more than one, based off the PDF of the agreement procedure. Here's the WashPost article in a cite: Zauzmer, Julie (January 3, 2020). "United Methodist Church is expected to split over gay marriage, fracturing the nation's third-largest denomination". Religion. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 3, 2020. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have now updated it, thanks for preparing the citations. Tell me if you have any comments on my update (I expect others to fill in more info shortly). Programmerarn (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the sentence "He knew that for two centuries the succession of bishops in the Church of Alexandria was preserved through ordination by presbyters alone" is exactly taken from the immediately previous reference, and might as well be put in quotations. This would also address the tendentious nature of the indirect claim - that in fact what he 'knew' is true and generally accepted as true. "He knew that vaccinations killed people" would be obvious as a bad sentence to have in Wikipedia.--2607:FEA8:D5DF:F945:8135:8E64:C05B:63FC (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The phrase "church leaders proposed ...", when used without further qualifications or specifications, is always taken to mean "all of the church's leaders, either unanimously or by a majority vote on the question, agreed to propose ..."

Was that actually the way it happened? Or should the sentence be modified to say "some of the church's leaders proposed ..." ? TooManyFingers (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name the four pillars. 41.57.95.228 (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scripture, tradition, reason, experience KitHutch (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]