by linda » Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:03 pm
Maybe it is a regional thing, but Methodists in NM when I was a kid and daddy was Methodist and on the church board definitely used the term born again, and sought to lead folks to a "crisis of conversion" or "being born again", their terms not mine. Here where we live now there are a large faction in the local UMC very clear about being born again. That is probably part of the split the whole town sees coming for our local UMC. Some are Wesleyans in a more revivalistic, evangelistic mode. Others are Wesleyans more in a "baptized as a baby and therefore saved" mode. For the first group, expecting a crisis of conversion (and a thorough going conversion where the person is expected to lead a changed life) makes it hard to swallow the progressive agenda that seems to assume people cannot convert, but rather are victims of, whatever their besetting sin is. And of course for the second group, it seems to them the first group is asking the impossible. (The first group would here toss in prevenient grace, saving grace, sustaining grace, sanctifying grace, and glorifying grace.)
It really is more two very different religions or faiths that sprung from common ground. I personally think a split would be a wonderful thing EVEN IF the hot button issues had never arisen.
But then I would say a split between the new Calvinists and the SBC traditionalists would be a good thing.
And with Calvinism invading our local AoG I would assume at some point there may be some splitting there.
The local CotN, very definitely formerly a "born again" stressing denomination, now follows headquarters and no longer teaches or expects a crisis of conversion.
Lots of changes going on under labels, and as a frequent transferee it can get crazy confusing.
Hard for me to believe JD Greear and Charles Stanley can be in the same group, lol.
Linda