r/methodism

​

Hi everyone! My husband and I are an Asian–Pasifika couple in our early 30s, living in East Auckland. We’ve been finding it quite difficult to find a church that is genuinely God-centred, mission-focused, and welcoming to newcomers—especially for people who are on the shyer side.

We’ve been attending the same church regularly for about three years, but unfortunately, we’ve found it hard to build friendships beyond a surface level. We also feel that the church places a strong focus on gaining biblical knowledge, but doesn’t seem to have much intention or involvement in reaching out to the wider community.

We’re hoping to find a church with a warm and welcoming culture, genuine people, and a strong desire to challenge and encourage one another to live more like Christ.

Does anyone have any churches in East Auckland or nearby that you’d recommend? We’d also really appreciate hearing about your own experiences of finding the right church.

I’ve been thinking about the context behind the virgin birth and the story behind it, but there are some gaps in my knowledge so apologies if I make wrong statements 👐🏽👐🏽. Was it that she was visited in a dream by the Spirit and asked? I also know that ideas around her age bring up moral issues, but there’s apparently nothing that specifically mentions her age. However I think it would be fair to say that if she was actually mid teens, then that should make anyone think. I know people give ‘cultural context’ argument when it comes to age of marriage, but would that not show that morality is flexible to change?

I hold that someone of that age is not mature mentally and physically to deal with that situation. I say this coming from a good place and someone who identifies as a Christian and believes that Christ was resurrected and his message. It’s just a question that has been pressing on me for a while regarding morality and things that we might overlook or justify because it’s a core feature of our faith, when in other situations would judge the morality of the circumstance more harshly.

Like if it was featured in another faith would we judge it more so, but we are less inclined when it occurs in our own faith?

I could be wrong - but would that not contradict some kind of real moral obligation? It would be wrong for that to occur to a teenager now, and I personally don’t see why it should be suddenly right then? I see many Christians criticize Islam because of the age of Aisha, but how is this any different? The arguments are the same regarding cultural customs and maturity etc

Hey everyone, I’ve made a few posts on here about my research on denomations along with their history and theology. I’ve mentioned that I like different parts of Eastern Orthodoxy and Methodist and Episcopal theology. Some responses have included that you cannot combine different elements that are not recognized as an officiant church.

My question is though - apart from affirming the Nicene Creed, what makes a church a church? Protestantism exists because of Reform and change, what makes that any different to me embracing Theosis yet rejecting the idea that women cannot occupy higher positions.

Another question is - is Orthodoxy the truly authentic church taught by Christ and the apostles, and we reject it because we do not agree with certain ideas? Also - the concept of Theosis or apophatic/negative theology developed a bit after the time of Christ and his apostles if I’m not wrong? So even in ‘Orthodoxy’ concepts develop from Aristotelian or Platonic philosophy and metaphysics.

Catholics who also claim to be the one true church due to apostolic succession believe in papal authority - which I don’t believe was mentioned in the Bible or practiced by Christ and the Apostles? If theology develops and changes within apostolic churches, why can I not combine different ideas?

And isn’t Theosis the same as social holiness in Methodism?

I was wondering what your churches do for evangelism? I know it is a big thing in the Methodist church, and what guys like John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury excelled at in the early days of Methodism!

Wesley said, "The world is my parish."

Does anyone have experience starting or attending a house church through the Global Methodist Church?

A close pastor friend is leaving the UMC for personal reasons and exploring their next steps. They've always felt called to church planting (specifically house churches), and the GMC offers support for this. I'd love any insight from people who have gone through this process. Please note: I'm not looking to start a debate about denomination politics or the merits of the GMC.

Currently, the UMC isn't offering support and has placed heavy restrictions on their pastoral duties simply for stepping back from their appointment, which has made the transition tricky.

What has your experience been with planting or hosting a GMC house church?

I’m the head of the Men’s Ministry at my church, and I’m trying to figure out how to get younger men involved.

Right now we have a breakfast once a month, but most of the men who come are retired. I’d like to find activities that would appeal more to men in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, especially men with jobs, kids, and busy schedules.

For those of you who have a successful Men’s Ministry, what has worked? What kinds of events get younger men to show up and keep coming back? I’m open to anything: service projects, outdoor activities, sports, dinners, speakers, family events, or something completely different.

I’m especially interested in ideas that don’t feel like another meeting.

I grew up Jehovah’s Witness and we were taught that only Jehovahs witnesses was the true church and all others who belong to other churches will be brutally murdered at Armageddon…what does the Methodist church believe? I’m looking to find a regular church.

I want to challenge you to read what I have written below carefully and respond to the actual biblical argument I am making.

I am not asking you to agree with me automatically, and I am not interested in insults, labels, political talking points, or simply saying that my position is hateful because you disagree with it. I am asking you to challenge my interpretation from Scripture.

If I am wrong, show me where I am wrong.

Show me from the biblical text why Genesis 1–2 and Jesus' use of Genesis in Matthew 19 do not establish a male female pattern for marriage and sexual union.

Show me why Jesus' condemnation of sexual immorality should be understood differently from the Jewish sexual ethic reflected in Scripture.

Show me why Leviticus 18:22 should be treated like dietary or ceremonial regulations when the surrounding chapter condemns incest, adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality, and when Leviticus 18:24–30 says the nations were defiled by these practices.

Show me from the language and historical evidence why arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 should be restricted specifically to exploitation, prostitution, or pederasty, especially considering its apparent relationship to the Greek wording of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

Explain Romans 1:26–27 from the text itself, including Paul's reference to both women and men, and show me why it should be understood as condemning only abusive or exploitative same sex relationships rather than same sex sexual behavior more broadly.

And finally, show me where Scripture establishes an exception in which a same sex sexual relationship becomes morally permissible because it is loving, committed, consensual, or monogamous.

I am genuinely willing to examine the arguments. I don't claim that Christians are incapable of misunderstanding Scripture. If my interpretation is wrong, then I want it corrected by Scripture. But the standard has to work both ways. We cannot begin with the conclusion we want and then make Scripture conform to it.

So read what follows. Check my references. Examine the context. Look at the Greek. Compare the Old and New Testaments. If you believe the affirming interpretation is the more faithful reading of Scripture, make that case from the text and address the arguments I have actually presented.

I will listen.

But I am asking you to do the same.

I appreciate the invitation to actually study these passages instead of simply repeating what we have been told.

Context matters. History matters. Language matters.

Christians should never use Scripture as an excuse for hatred, cruelty, mockery, or treating another human being as less valuable. Every person bears the image of God and deserves dignity and love.

But after studying this issue, I do not believe the argument that homosexuality is biblically permissible holds up when we consider the whole counsel of Scripture.

THE BIBLICAL CASE BEGINS WITH CREATION

The biblical case for God's design for sexuality does not depend on one verse in Leviticus or one disputed Greek word from Paul.

It begins in Genesis, before the Mosaic Law even existed.

Genesis 1:27 says God created humanity "male and female," and Genesis 2:24 establishes the pattern of a man leaving his father and mother, being joined to his wife, and the two becoming one flesh.

Jesus Himself appeals directly to this creation account in Matthew 19:4–6:

"Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"

Jesus grounded His teaching about marriage in God's created order: male and female, husband and wife, becoming one flesh.

"JESUS NEVER MENTIONED HOMOSEXUALITY"

The argument that "Jesus never mentioned homosexuality" does not settle the issue.

Jesus did not provide an exhaustive list of every prohibited sexual act.

Jesus never specifically mentioned bestiality either. Does that mean He approved of it? Of course not.

Leviticus 18:22 prohibits a man lying sexually with another man, and the very next verse, Leviticus 18:23, prohibits sexual relations with animals.

Nobody seriously argues that because Jesus never specifically condemned bestiality by name, Christians should now consider it morally acceptable.

Silence about a particular act does not equal approval.

Jesus also explicitly condemned sexual immorality.

In Matthew 15:19 He includes πορνεῖαι, from πορνεία (porneia), among the sins coming from the human heart.

To be precise, porneia does not simply mean "homosexuality." It is a broad term referring to illicit sexual activity.

But Jesus was a first century Jewish teacher speaking within the sexual framework already established by Scripture. There is no evidence that Jesus redefined sexual morality so that conduct previously identified as sexually immoral suddenly became righteous.

In fact, Jesus intensified sexual morality.

In Matthew 5:27–28, He taught that adultery was not merely about the physical act because lust itself reveals sin within the heart.

"JESUS DIDN'T SAY IT. PAUL DID."

There is also a deeper Christian problem with saying, "Jesus didn't say it, Paul did."

Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh.

John 1:1 says:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:14 says:

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

Christians do not believe only the red letters of the Bible are inspired.

Second Timothy 3:16 says:

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God."

Paul is not Jesus, but Paul's inspired apostolic teaching cannot simply be dismissed because Jesus did not personally speak those particular sentences during His earthly ministry.

WHAT ABOUT SHELLFISH AND OTHER OLD TESTAMENT LAWS?

The shellfish argument also fails to recognize how the New Testament itself treats different Old Testament commandments.

It is true that Scripture does not give us a neat chart labeled "moral law, ceremonial law, and civil law." Those are theological categories Christians use to describe distinctions that actually appear within Scripture.

The New Testament explicitly removes Old Covenant food and ceremonial restrictions.

Mark 7 addresses food purity.

Acts 10 demonstrates that the old ritual distinctions concerning clean and unclean are no longer binding in the same way.

Romans 14:14 says:

"I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself."

Colossians 2:16 says:

"Let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths."

Hebrews explains how the Old Testament sacrificial system pointed forward to Christ and was fulfilled in Him.

So Christians do not eat shellfish because we randomly decided that command was inconvenient. The New Testament itself teaches us how those covenantal regulations are transformed and fulfilled in Christ.

Now compare that with sexual morality.

The New Testament does not say, "The Old Testament sexual restrictions have been abolished."

Instead, it repeatedly reaffirms sexual holiness.

LEVITICUS 18 IS NOT JUST ABOUT CEREMONIAL PURITY

Leviticus 18 itself also demonstrates why comparing homosexuality to shellfish is problematic.

That chapter condemns incest, adultery, child sacrifice, male same sex intercourse, and bestiality.

Then God says in Leviticus 18:24 that the pagan nations had defiled themselves through these practices.

Those nations were never under Israel's ceremonial covenant in the way Israel was, yet God still judged their sexual immorality.

That makes it extremely difficult to dismiss these prohibitions as merely ceremonial regulations comparable to dietary restrictions.

And again, consider bestiality.

It immediately follows the prohibition of male same sex intercourse in Leviticus 18.

Almost nobody argues, "Jesus fulfilled the Law, so bestiality must be permissible now."

Why?

Because we recognize that fulfillment of the Mosaic covenant does not mean everything God previously identified as morally sinful suddenly became morally good.

Most importantly, the biblical sexual ethic begins before Leviticus.

It begins with creation itself.

Male and female.

Husband and wife.

One flesh.

Jesus Himself reaffirmed that pattern.

TRUTH DOES NOT GIVE CHRISTIANS PERMISSION TO HATE

None of this gives Christians permission to hate homosexual people.

Hatred is sin.

Cruelty is sin.

Mockery is wrong.

Every person is made in God's image.

But loving someone does not require me to tell them that something Scripture identifies as sin has become righteousness.

Jesus perfectly embodied grace and truth.

Christians are called to do the same.

WHAT DID PAUL ACTUALLY MEAN?

Now let's deal with Paul, because the argument is often made that Paul's words arsenokoitai and malakoi are misunderstood and really refer only to prostitution, pederasty, abuse, or exploitation rather than same sex sexual behavior generally.

First Corinthians 6:9–11 contains both μαλακοί (malakoi) and ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai).

Yes, malakos can literally mean "soft." Jesus even uses the word when referring to "soft clothing" in Matthew 11:8.

But words derive their meaning from context.

The English word "bank" can refer to a financial institution or the side of a river. Showing that Jesus used malakos to describe clothing does not establish what Paul meant when he used the word within a list concerning sinful behavior.

More importantly, arsenokoitai is not easily reduced to "pederasts" or "male prostitutes."

The word combines arsēn, meaning male, and koitē, meaning bed and often carrying sexual connotations.

That becomes particularly significant when we examine the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint.

The Greek wording of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 places these same key terms together when describing male same sex intercourse.

There is therefore strong reason to understand Paul's arsenokoitai as deliberately echoing Leviticus.

The claim that Paul's contemporaries commonly used the word specifically and exclusively for pederasty or prostitution should therefore be made much more cautiously than it often is.

ROMANS 1 DOES NOT USE ARSENOKOITAI

There is an even bigger problem with making the entire discussion about arsenokoitai:

Romans 1:26–27 doesn't use that word at all.

Paul describes women exchanging natural sexual relations for those contrary to nature and men abandoning relations with women and becoming sexually inflamed toward other men.

Paul does not say this is sinful only when prostitution, rape, economic exploitation, or pederasty is involved.

Those qualifications have to be supplied by the interpreter.

Romans 1 also discusses both men and women, making an interpretation focused exclusively on ancient pederasty particularly difficult.

This connects naturally with the creation pattern established in Genesis and reaffirmed by Jesus:

Male and female.

"PAUL WAS WRITING TO A DIFFERENT CULTURE"

The response is sometimes that Paul's letters were written to specific churches dealing with specific cultural situations.

That's absolutely true.

But historical context helps us understand Scripture. It does not automatically eliminate its authority.

Romans was written to particular Christians in Rome. Does that mean justification by faith applied only to ancient Romans?

First Corinthians was written to a troubled congregation in Corinth. Does that mean Paul's teaching about Christ's resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 was merely a local cultural issue?

Ephesians was written within a particular historical setting. Does "husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church" no longer apply?

Of course not.

We have to examine each teaching within its own context rather than assuming that anything uncomfortable to modern culture must have been culturally limited.

WHAT ABOUT MARRIAGE, WOMEN SPEAKING, AND HAIR?

The examples involving marriage, women speaking, and hair also deserve more careful treatment.

Paul did not command all Christians never to marry.

First Corinthians 7 explicitly recognizes marriage as legitimate, while Paul explains the advantages of singleness and speaks about the "present distress."

Likewise, whatever interpretation Christians take regarding women's roles in worship, Paul obviously did not mean women could never utter a single word in church because 1 Corinthians 11 discusses women praying and prophesying.

The passages concerning hair involve questions of honor, sex distinctions, nature, and cultural symbolism.

Those passages deserve careful exegesis rather than being lumped together as evidence that Paul's sexual ethics can also be dismissed as cultural.

WHAT ABOUT LOVING, COMMITTED SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS?

Then there is the argument that the Bible never specifically describes a modern, loving, committed, monogamous same sex relationship.

We should acknowledge something important here:

The Bible obviously does not discuss modern psychological categories of sexual orientation using twenty first century terminology.

But that does not prove that biblical sexual prohibitions applied only to abusive relationships.

That conclusion has to come from the text.

Scripture consistently establishes legitimate sexual union within male female marriage.

Genesis 2:24 establishes the one flesh union.

Jesus reaffirms it in Matthew 19.

Paul reaffirms it in Ephesians 5:31.

When Scripture discusses same sex sexual behavior, it never creates an exception saying that it becomes permissible when accompanied by affection, commitment, exclusivity, or love.

Love and commitment matter enormously, but sincere love does not automatically make every sexual relationship morally permissible.

A married person could genuinely believe they have fallen in love with someone other than their spouse. That does not make adultery righteous.

Christian sexual morality has never been simply, "If two people love one another, whatever they do sexually must therefore be holy."

THIS DOES NOT PLACE HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE BEYOND GOD'S GRACE

None of this means homosexual people are beyond God's love or grace.

First Corinthians 6 is actually beautiful because Paul lists numerous kinds of sinners, not merely sexual sinners.

Then he says:

"And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."

That is the Gospel.

Christians have sometimes treated LGBTQ people horribly, and where that has happened, Christians should repent.

Mockery is wrong.

Hatred is wrong.

Cruelty is wrong.

Dehumanizing someone is wrong.

Treating homosexual sin as uniquely disgusting while ignoring heterosexual adultery, pornography, lust, greed, drunkenness, gossip, pride, hatred, and hypocrisy within our own churches is wrong.

Romans 3:23 says:

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

That includes me.

That includes heterosexual people.

That includes homosexual people.

Every one of us needs Jesus Christ.

OUR IDENTITY IS IN CHRIST

Our ultimate identity is not supposed to be our sexuality, temptations, failures, political affiliation, denomination, or past.

The Christian's identity is in Christ.

First John 1:8 also reminds us:

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

Biblical Christianity can therefore say to someone:

I love you. You bear God's image. You have tremendous value. You are welcome to hear the Gospel. I will treat you with dignity. I will pray for you. I will never mock or dehumanize you.

But because I love you, I also cannot tell you that something I believe Scripture identifies as sin is actually righteousness.

That isn't hatred.

That is the same standard Christianity should apply to every one of us.

STUDY IT FOR YOURSELF

Don't believe homosexuality is sinful simply because your parents or pastor told you.

But don't believe it isn't sinful because modern culture, social media, or another pastor told you either.

Read Genesis 1 and 2.

Read Leviticus 18 and 20 in context.

Read Matthew 5, Matthew 15, and Matthew 19.

Read Romans 1 in its entirety.

Read 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1.

Study the Greek.

Examine the Septuagint.

Read scholars representing both positions.

Pray.

Search the Scriptures.

Acts 17:11 praises the Bereans because they searched the Scriptures daily to determine whether what they were hearing was true.

Stay in the Word.

Know the Word.

Test teaching against the Word.

We should never use truth as an excuse to abandon love, but neither should we redefine biblical teaching in an attempt to appear loving.

Ephesians 4:15 calls Christians to speak "the truth in love."

The answer is not hatred.

The answer is not self righteousness.

And the answer is not redefining sin.

The answer is Jesus Christ.

All of us are sinners in need of His grace, and all of us are called to repent, believe the Gospel, deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him.

Hi, I am an Anglican but this weekend I've been trying to read up a bit on the Free Methodists. In my country (England) they have been restricted to a couple of counties for a long time, but they have now planted into my county and this week I was invited to a prayer meeting that will be hosted in one of their buildings.

One thing I can't work out is whether they have an itinerant ministry or stationing process in the way that the liberal Methodists (Methodist Church in Britain/UMC) do, i.e. are their ministers likely to be in my county for the long term or not. Unfortunately they have recently nuked their website for a brand new one, so although it's very pretty, my Google searches all lead to dead links. Does anyone here know, please?