Talk:Global Methodist Church

New page
Wanted to make a page for this new denomination. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Should this really be described as part of the Holiness movement? Is that what they are claiming? The Holiness Movement has a historical and theological development distinct from mainline Methodism-which this new denomination is coming out of. I think it would be more appropriate to label this new church as an evangelical Methodist denomination. I'm not quite sure it fits as specifically Holiness. Ltwin (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Huh. Didn't make that addition, but yeah at least using that source seems like a stretch effort to say it’s Holiness-aligned. Will delete. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Lede edit
Per 's edit here on getting a talk page consensus, just wanted to say I don't want to contest this edit if they want to stand by it. Seems ok enough. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Pbritti, thank you. I've authored/edited the majority of Methodist denominational articles here on Wikipedia. The way I rewrote the first sentence is in accordance with those conventions. Kind regards, AnupamTalk 17:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah! I appreciate the drive towards consistency, something too often neglected on denominational articles. Thanks for the explanation–with it I fully endorse your actions even if I still have personal preferences which matter less than accuracy and user experience. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome User:Pbritti! With regard to your edit here, the history of General Conference rulings, along with nonadherance to them, is indeed relevant to the schism within the United Methodist Church that has resulted in the formation of the Global Methodist Church. Would you kindy consider undoing your edit? Thanks, AnupamTalk 17:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * On that we disagree. I'm fairly certain that the sources cited all lack mention of the Global Methodist Church or any immediate discussion of plans to create such a body from the UMC. While that information is very much useful context, it constitutes WP:NOR, specifically with by synthesizing sources to (correctly) suggest a pattern of liberalization on sexuality that faced semi-effective conservative/traditionalist opposition. However, given that this article is in its infancy and sourcing will eventually pan out on it, I won't step in your way of restoring that passage (though I think we could remove the extended quotations from the citations). ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am going to restore it for now, since it provides context on the schism. I should note that the pattern was not towards liberalization, but towards traditionalism in light of the Church growing overseas. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Unclear language
In the "History" section, it is stated that "the denomination was launched on May 1, 2022." However, it is unclear whether this is referring to the Free Methodist Church or the Global Methodist Church.

P.S. I am currently working on creating a more thorough article on the schism.

-AAEexecutive (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Homosexuality
The fact that the schism that resulted in the creation of this denomination was precipitated by differences of opinion over homosexuality is not explicitly stated in the lead paragraph. Homosexuality is not mentioned at all until the second paragraph of the "History" section. Instead, the whole controversy is cloaked in more abstract language about "traditionalists" versus "progressives." This strikes me as the framing preferred by one (or perhaps even both) sides of the schism, but I think this encyclopedic article should more directly and immediately inform the reader that the controversy was focused on the issue of homosexuality.

Frankly I think this entire article has NPOV problems.

As a start, perhaps the second paragraph of the lead could read, "The Global Methodist Church was created as a result of a schism with the United Methodist Church, after member congregations departed over doctrinal differences. Congregations that left the UMC to form the Global Methodist Church opposed recognition of same-sex marriage and the ordination of noncelibate gay clergy." Leoniceno (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead as I originally published the article clearly stated the issue of same-sex marriage as the primary factor in the schism and establishment of the GMC. This was changed, but I have made amendments based on your suggestions. As for the terminology of "traditionalists" and "progressives", these seem support by reliable sources and also appear to be the favored self-descriptors of many involved in these events. Any further suggestions you may have are more than welcomed. Thanks, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Right, by no means do I think the terms "traditionalist" and "progressive" need to be entirely stripped from the article or that they're wholly inappropriate. To be more specific about the NPOV concern I had: On a first read, I thought that the fourth paragraph of the history section could be written in a more neutral way. But on a re-read, I can see how it might be justified as just bluntly factual.
 * I wonder if the "History" section could somehow be split up into two sections that would make the information easier to absorb. Perhaps one heading could cover events that led to the founding of the denomination, and a second heading could cover the founding and the events that have followed. Leoniceno (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD, I have restored the WP:STATUSQUO with respect to a clause that was removed by User:Pbritti. While I do not object to the addition regarding homosexuality, it should be made clear that this was not the only reason behind the schism. The clause about traditional Methodist praxis makes that clear. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The sourcing is insufficient to support the clause you have repeatedly added to the lead. It may have been something of a factor, but almost all reporting is explicit about LGBT issues being at the center of this. Hence, the bit about "praxis" is undue. There is also the question of why the LGBT context was removed in the first place. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have used the wording directly found in the source even though the descripion about orthodox Methodist praxis is a good summary of what the source states. Please note that my addition does not revert your inclusion of the context about homosexuality. There is a larger context apart from human sexuality that characterizes what sources define as traditionalism versus progressivism, as this source notes. AnupamTalk 21:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)