<article_title>United_Methodist_Church</article_title>
<edit_user>Revmqo</edit_user>
<edit_time>Sunday, January 24, 2010 6:31:05 PM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Saints in the United Methodist Church */ once again decreasing the length of an unnecessary section (see talk page)</edit_comment>
<edit_text>Image:STPAULSTANDREWCHURCHUMC.jpg The United Methodist Church's understanding of &quot;saint&quot; is not unique among Protestants. They consider all faithful Christians to be saints, as the word is used throughout the New Testament. The NT refers to the <strong><strike>&amp;quot;saints in Jerusalem,&amp;quot;{{Bibleref2c|Acts|9:13}} &amp;quot;saints who lived at [[Lod|Lydda]],&amp;quot;{{Bibleref2c|Acts|9:32}} &amp;quot;Greet every saint in Christ Jesus…,&amp;quot;{{Bibleref2c|Phil.|4:21}} &amp;quot;I lock(ed) up many of the saints in prisons.&amp;quot;{{Bibleref2c|Acts|26:10}} &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Saints&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Saints Among Us.&amp;quot; ''Time'' magazine, Dec. 29, 1975. Online: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945463-2,00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; All true Christian believers are considered saints by virtu</strike></strong><strong>faithful exampl</strong>e of their connection with Jesus Christ.</edit_text>
<turn_user>Revmqo<turn_user>
<turn_time>Sunday, January 24, 2010 6:36:10 PM CET</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Saints section</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>Afa, you've given no reason for removing the section. A RS is provided, in line with what is written in the article. It is relevant to the article, so there is no reason to remove it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 02:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Yeah Afa, I just don't see why it's so hard to understand that the UMC says "Saints" and so does the UpperRoom source, which is the UMC publication. So what's the issue here and why keep removing it? Additionally, please observe WP:3RR as continued edit warring will be reported. - ALLST✰RUnicodecolor:#FF72E3;▼echo wuz here @ 03:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)The cited article says in part: "United Methodist's do not believe in Saints in the same way that the Catholic Church does. But we can learn from the lives of saints ... they have many gifts to give us.... (John Wesley) omitted the entire "saints (sanctorial) cycle" of saints' days. Wesley sensed that, 'most of the holy days' (so called) were 'at present answering no valuable end.' Wesley's writing, preaching and prayer were strongly focused on Christ, his birth, teaching, cross and resurrection. For that reason, he emphasized the saving and sanctifying grace of the Lord.... United Methodists do not knowingly exhibit devotion to persons called saints.... United Methodists, along with most Protestants, do not canonize persons by particular criteria, as does the Roman Catholic Church." The wording in the Wiki article lists things out of context. It adds nothing but confusion to the article. "Saints" is a biblical term meaning "sanctified (saved) ones." Technically, any true Christian saved by grace is a "saint"--a sanctified one. There is nothing unique in Methodism that differs from a general Protestant understanding. This article is about things that uniquely characterize the UMC. "Saints" is not one of them.Afaprof01 (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC) I fail to see how the section is at all confusing. It is a subsection of beliefs. As it is a UMC belief, it is relevant to the section. [There is] No reason not to include it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC) The sources cited by Allstarecho are not official source documents and allow suspect information to be introduced into the article. United Methodist's believe in saints only as the concept relates to the "communion of saints" which are those Christians who have gone on to the church triumphant. It is wise to remember that John Wesley was an Anglican priest and not a United Methodist. While he founded the movement that became the United Methodist Church, we don't adhere 100% to his theology or teachings. The only source document which can legitimately be cited as to what "United Methodist's" believe (in an official sense) is the "United Methodist Book of Disicipline." While it is fair to say that "United Methodists believe that saints are those who have lived a life of faith and example and have gone on to be with God." The denomination has no process for naming/approving saints and generally uses the term with a capital "s" only when referring to Biblical characters who influenced the life of the church and its predecessor the synagogue. The Upper Room is a publication of the United Methodist Church, but it is a periodical, not an historical or theological treatise. As such, it is not a sufficient source to cite when citing the official stance of the entire denomination. In answering the question posed in the cited article, Dan Benedict gives his own POV from a Methodist perspective, but by no means speaks on behalf of the denomination in an official capacity. (According to WP guidance Opinion Articles should not be used to cite fact, only the opinion of the writer.) The section that I removed is wrong and should not be presented as fact. Revmqo (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Your assessment that "sources cited by Allstarecho are not official source documents" is entirely wrong. The source is the Upper Room publication, which is owned by the United Methodist Church. Further, the UMC's http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&amp;mid=1382 to go to the Upper Room web page for the UMC position on saints. The source is therefore valid, notable and simply can not be denied. - ALLST✰RUnicodecolor:#FF72E3;▼echo wuz here @ 21:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Revmqo is correct. The Upper Room web site says it is "a ministry of GBOD." GBDO's web site says it is "An agency of The United Methodist Church." It further identifies itself as accountable to UMC's General Board of Discipleship. Are Upper Room and GBDO official agencies of UMC? YES. But official what? Neither is commissioned to be spokespersons about matters of doctrine. GBOD's charter is "making disciples for Jesus Christ." Upper Room says "the heart of its ministry" is publication of a daily devotional guide. Its charter is developing and carrying out programs to meet the "spiritual needs of persons and communities of faith." The insistence on retaining this section continues to detract from the overall article. It adds absolutely nothing but confusion to the article. What's the point? To say UMC's believe in saints requires a definition of saints. Do they honor heroes and heroines of the faith? John Wesley said YES. Are they even close to the Roman Catholic definition of sainthood. No way. My vote is to delete the section entirely and let's move on to something important. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Amen to that! I vote to remove the section as well. It really has no bearing on what it means to be a United Methodist! Allstarecho, please stop interpreting edits as a personal attack. I am a United Methodist Elder and have graduate degrees on what it means to be a United Methodist Christian. I can confirm that Upper Room and GBOD are in fact institutions of the church, but the Doctrine (or Discipline) of the church does NOT grant them the right to speak for the denomination. You can't get more official than the Articles of Faith, which collectively are one of the doctrinal standards of the church. Other than reciting the historical confessions of faith (i.e. Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed) and singing the occasional hymn, the vast majority of United Methodist simply don't refer to saints as a regular part of their religious experience. Sure there are churches named after Biblical "Saints," but even this is limited to a few. It is the Methodist understanding of Grace and New Birth which defines us as a Christian community. Revmqo (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC) How can you have an article about a religious denomination and not include this fundamental belief? You simply can't. Leave it as it is. - ALLST✰RUnicodecolor:#FF72E3;▼echo wuz here @ 13:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I agree with Revmqo and Afaprof01. The section gives undue wieght (WP:undue) to a very minor Methodist belief. For example, section starts with "The United Methodist Church believes that "saints" are those who have lived a life of Christian faith and example and have gone on to become a part of the church triumphant or "Cloud of Witnesses." Isn't this a general Protestant view? That Christians are saints is a generally recognized belief not unique to Methodists. And a very minor belief. Finally, the section itself points out the fact that this is unimportant to understanding the UMC, saying "Methodists do not have a process for canonizing Saints and do not practice the veneration or patronage of Saints." Allstarecho, you say this is a fundamental belief, but it doesn't seem that they care all that much about it. This section gives undue wieght to a minor, almost an afterthought, aspect of doctrine. Ltwin (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I think the present version of the section (ie, that made by Revmqo) is fine. It is short and cites a RS that seems agreeable to both sides. While not a super-important belief to to Methodists, it is relevant as a part of their belief. There's no reason not to mention it, as it is sourced. A four-sentence section about an uncontroversial, non-scandalous topic can't be undue weight. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Now that there seems to be some consensus on the section in its edited form, let's discuss placement. This is obviously a contentious section for some, but it simply doesn't rise to a level of importance within Methodist Beliefs to justify it's prominent placement in the article. Any suggestions as to where we can relocate it so that it doesn't have a major paragraph heading? I suppose locating at the end of the "Beliefs" section would be better than the current layout, but it really doesn't belong there either as it isn't germane to a discussion of core Methodist beliefs. Revmqo (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Where else would it go other than as a subsection of the main Beliefs section? I mean, is it not a belief? - ALLST✰RUnicodecolor:#FF72E3;▼echo wuz here @ 03:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I think the only option to de-emphasize it is place it within the beliefs section, following the social issues. It has to keep its heading level though, there isn't anything else to place it under, I don't think. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Suggest this statement be rewritten and citations added as it represents POV in it's current form. This opens the door for defining "true Christian believers" and that isn't necessary to complete the intended thought. Revmqo (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC) "All true Christian believers are considered saints. Christians are saints by virtue of their connection with Jesus Christ whether or not they are thought to be "saintly"—no implication of perfection is implied or intended." Once again I have reduced the verbosity of this section! As we have previously discussed on endless occasions, this is simply not a relevant section for United Methodism. As indicated previously, some Christians who come to the UMC from other "high church" denominations may hold on to their beliefs about saints, but this is simply not a part of Methodist faith and practice. Besides, there is a separate article to deal with this issue! Revmqo (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>Once again I have reduced the verbosity of this section! As we have previously discussed on endless occasions, this is simply not a relevant section for United Methodism. As indicated previously, some Christians who come to the UMC from other "high church" denominations may hold on to their beliefs about saints, but this is simply not a part of Methodist faith and practice. Besides, there is a separate article to deal with this issue! </turn_text>