Posted on 12/09/2016 7:08:04 AM PST by rhett october
After I read the story entitled, “Methodist Churches Converting To ‘Virtual Mosques’ For Muslim Migrants,” I spent much of the day in mild shock. I couldn’t believe what was going on inside of a Christian denomination whose founding was so deeply influenced by the great man John Wesley.
I had to know what Methodists thought of this. Surely they didn’t go along with it. At least not all of them or even a majority of them. My assumption, and hope, was that it was a very small minority of Methodists who thought that having worship of Allah in their building was an appropriate, God-honoring event. How could they think their church should double as a church and a Mosque? Surely they had not lost their way and could see how apostate and foreign such a thing was to Christianity and the New Testament. Surely this was just one man who had been led astray or who was seeking his 10 minutes of fame.
So I took to the phones, contacting my Methodist friends to ask their thoughts. Here are some of their reactions and concerns.
Suzanne from near Little Rock, AR
Suzanne – “I heard about it yesterday but couldn’t believe what I was hearing. I mean, ain’t nothing wrong with reaching out to folks, but you don’t sell yourself, your soul to do it. You don’t give up God to make some other religion happy. You don’t join them in worship to a false god.”
Rhett October – "Is your church taking part in this?"
Suzanne – “Absolutely not. And if they did, I, we would not go back there. We’d just find ourselves another place to go, to worship you know.”
Rhett October – "Would you leave the Methodist church over this for another church?"
Suzanne – “Well, I mean, I’m hoping it doesn’t come to that, but you asked so I’m telling you. Yes, I would. My family would. We’re not Muslims. We worship Jesus, not their god, Allah or whatever.”
Kyle from Tennessee
Kyle – “My wife is kind of freaking out about this. She had me call our pastor last night about it.”
Rhett October – "So I guess it’s safe to say you’re against it?"
Kyle – “What, are you kidding me or something? Yeah I’m against it. You think they’d let us in one of their mosques to worship Jesus? You think they’d even entertain the idea? They’d see it as an abomination. They’d…no way.”
Rhett October – "How is your wife reacting? How is she freaking out?"
Kyle – “She’s thinking in terms of, you know, safety. I mean the biggest thing is the, well, you know, it’s an affront is what it is. Trying to water down or make all of the religions equal or the same and like we’re all going to heaven.”
Rhett October – "In what way is she thinking of safety?"
Kyle – “Well I told her if where we go, our church, was to do this, we’d be gone, but what she was saying was, with the terrorism and the attacks by the refugees, Islamic refugees, which is who that Texas bunch is trying to invite in, you know, she’d be worried about an attack or well, and we also have daughters. There have been some rapes by refugees in Europe. It just makes no sense that we’d risk our children. You think we’re going to convert them? We’re not going to convert them. They don’t want to be converted. Of course, what that Texas group is doing would mean the Muslims wouldn't even have to convert.”
Deronte from Austin, TX
Deronte – “My pastor emailed the whole church and he’s was all like telling us that it wasn’t going to happen in our church. People be panicking. People saying they going to leave the church if we starting a Muslim service. I’m right there with them. Right there, you know.”
Rhett October – "So you don’t agree in reaching out to Muslims in that way?"
Deronte – “Alright, so there’s a difference in reaching out to someone and what they’re doing. Yeah, so what they’re doing is incorporating worship of another God into their church. Your church shouldn’t offer worshiping another God as, like a, service they offer. We ain’t supposed to be a buffet. You know what I’m saying?”
Angie from Atlanta, GA
Angie – “I’m just reacting now that you told me and I’m just in disbelief. This isn’t the church I grew up in. It’s not my church now. I just, I, why would they do this? Why would they, when we don’t just substitute God for some other god to make people happy. Who does that? What church would do that? Would they substitute Allah for Jesus and think it’s okay or what, I mean, would anyone think that God would be happy to just be replaced. This just seems too crazy to be, you know, well, it seems impossible. Like it’s not happening. But that’s today’s world. That’s where we are.”
Rhett October – "So what would you do if your church decided to do this?"
Angie – “I can’t think about that. I mean…”
Rhett October – "I’m saying, would you continue to go to your church?"
Angie – “Well, no. I mean, no. How could we? How could we support such a thing?”
Rhett October – "What would you do?"
Angie – “We’d go to another church, that’s what. We’d find a group that doesn’t sell out God for someone else’s God just to look open minded and well, tolerant-looking, I guess is what they’re going for. They want to look like they’re so meek and mild but the Bible says for us to stand firm in the truth, you know?”
Rhett October – "Yes, I do know."
I didn’t make up the story. There are legit sources for it.
http://www.infowars.com/methodist-churches-converting-to-virtual-mosques-for-muslim-migrants/
http://pamelageller.com/2016/12/local-texas-united-methodist-church-waco-now-embracing-islam.html/
According to Fox News:
From Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/23/trumps-battle-against-illegal-immigrant-sanctuary-may-end-at-church-steps.html
“Hundreds of houses of worship around the nation have pledged to provide safe harbor to illegal immigrants facing deportation, as have cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and New York City. While Trump may relish a policy and funding fight with the leaders of Democratic strongholds, imposing his administration’s will on churches could be another matter.
“‘There is a long tradition in American law enforcement of not breaking into churches in order to arrest someone unless the person is wanted for an act of violence,’ Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano told FoxNews.com. ‘In order for the police or for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enter a church against the will of a priest or minister who is running the church, they need an arrest warrant for a specific human being –short of that, they’re not going to go in there.’
“In New York City alone, there are 11 congregations that offer sanctuary for illegal immigrants, and according to the Rev. Donna Schaper, senior minister of Judson Memorial Church, more could follow.
“‘There has been a tremendous increase in interest since the election,” Schaper told FoxNews.com. “The newly elected president is threatening to deport many of them and they want to be safe—churches have a moral mandate to help people in a way that is different than cities in general.’
“Schaper is a founder of New Sanctuary Movement New York, an interfaith network of congregations that help to provide spiritual, financial, emotional and legal support to illegal immigrants. In some cases, those under the church’s protection move into the building and live there indefinitely.”
In Philadelphia, the New Santuary Movement has seen requests to sign up spike in recent days – specifically, since the election.
I didn’t make up the story. There are legit sources for it. And I simply asked some Methodists that I know if they’d heard of it, what they thought of it, and what they would do if their church did it.
yes the U Methodist Church has some big issues ahead that could well split the denomination. A (false) rumor like this could actually be a good thing, since it may have the power to get members to look and see what may be ahead for the denomination.
The Methodist Church currently does NOT perform Same Sex marriage and it does NOT ordain Pastors who state that they are in sexual relationships outside of marriage...but there are a couple of renegade conferences that ignore part of the Book of Discipline, and in addition San Fran, CA elected as their Bishop a lesbian which has produced a big push back and the International General Conference is going to have to decide which path they will follow.
The African Continent may prove to be America's Godly missionaries within the United Methodist Denomination...
http://www.clarionproject.org/Muslim_Brotherhood_Explanatory_Memorandum
“I couldn’t believe what was going on inside of a Christian denomination...”
Well, there’s your mistake. Methodists parted ways with Christianity quite some time ago.
The ONLY source from the Bosqueville church (membership 44 with average attendance in the low 30s)sited is an anonymous (man).
What are the "other sources" you say that are claiming it legit even when the named sources say it's a lie. I haven't seen any and I've done all the reading on it I could find.
Why would you still think it's true when all the named sources says it's not? Could it be that you WANT it to be true?
Great. So here’s how things work on FR:
You find a story of interest in a legitimate news channel and post the link to THAT STORY here, not your blogified version of it.
Many of us don’t take kindly to blog-pimping. It serves no purpose, adds no value, and in some views, takes advantage of the free (unless you donate as you should) service provided by the owner of FR.
Big Bob, I posted the story link in the news section: http://pamelageller.com/2016/12/local-texas-united-methodist-church-waco-now-embracing-islam.html/
Then I did an interview with some people about that story, which 3 out of the 4 people I called had heard already and not from me. I asked them if they’d heard the story, what they thought of it, and what they would do if their church did what the story claimed. I posted that interview on a website that I write for and posted that content in full here. I have stayed within the rules of Free Republic. The writer at the original source is an investigative reporter from The Daily Caller named John Griffing. I have no control over him or contact with him. One source says it’s true, one says it’s false. I interviewed people not asking if it was true or false. I simply asked if they had heard the story, what they thought of it, and what they would do if it happened in their church.
If it’s true, I’m appalled. If it’s not true, and I hope it’s not, I’m relieved.
And one of the Methodists that I spoke with said that his pastor had emailed the church about the matter. So the story is making it’s rounds and that was long before I posted a link to the story or did an interview the day after I heard about it.
The ONLY source from the Bosqueville church (membership 44 with average attendance in the low 30s)sited is an anonymous (man).
What are the "other sources" you say that are claiming it legit even when the named sources say it's a lie. I haven't seen any and I've done all the reading on it I could find.
Why would you still think it's true when all the named sources says it's not? Could it be that you WANT it to be true?"
Could it be that Mr October here is manufacturing rather than reporting the news?
Could it be that this is the kind of fakery that gives Conservative journalists (the *real* ones) a bad name and brings on charges of "Fake News?"
Could it be that the pimp-ish blogger wants to break a big story so bad that he's fanning the flames of an "iffy" one?
(See how easy it is to ascribe motives and infer things?)
So let me get this straight. I provide a source in the news section here. A writer from The Daily Caller, which is linked to very often here as a legitimate source of news/information.
Then, I do an interview asking if people HAD HEARD that story - and 3 out of 4 had. Asking them their thoughts on it and what they would do if it happened in their church. And I’m “fanning the flames of an ‘iffy’ one”?
How so? Were the other people who posted stories by that Daily Caller writer (who has written a ton for The Daily Caller) also “fanning the flames of an iffy story?” Will the same standard be applied to anyone who posts a story from a regularly used source just because someone else thinks another source that says it’s not true is more credible?
The Daily Caller reported information suggesting that Donald Trump would win whereas other places like Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, and others said that it wasn’t likely. So does that mean that those other sources are “iffy”?
Ponder these mysteries you must, padawan.
Does this mean they haven’t all converted yet?
The United Church of Christ is doing the same thing.
Some churches here are sponsoring refugees. A good friend of mine right now is in a verbal battle with them about it. Something I know I will keep an eye on.
That is where most denominations have gone, social justice, Alinsky-type caring and liberal.
This is sometimes (often maybe) different than what the liberal thought of SocialJustice actually is.... SocialJustice does not mean accept evil as good, nor does it mean to act as the world wants you to act, but too often the worldy view of Justice is far different than Godly Justice
So after all this bluster and denial, you found your premise to indeed be "iffy" and you posted a "refutation" (actually I think you mean a "retraction") on your nascent blog but you somehow forgot to mention it here on the thread where you promulgated this rumor.
You're doing a real bang-up job of building a reputation for credibility here on FR.
You thought your blog should be posted in "News".
At this rate you'll be lucky if they let you into "Chat."
As for your blog...See tagline.
This is in addition to my first reply. This is the person who wrote that story (still on The Geller Report with no mention that the story is being denied by other sources):
“Griffing is an Associate Editor with The Daily Caller, an investigative journalist, media relations expert and public speaker who has been instrumental in demanding transparency in the public sphere. His interview credits include Fortune 500 executives, as well as key public officials. He helped run the largest Republican Political Action Committee (PAC) in Texas and served as ‘Executive Director’ of the largest county Republican Party in Texas.”
Wouldn’t you say that is a credible source and that it would make sense for me to post a link to what he wrote? Would you have seen that this person wrote the story and then decided it to be a false story? And then, if that story had been reported by another website as being false, would you feel like it would be justified for people to attack you for posting a link to that story as though you just should have know it to be untrue?
I’ll read what you have to say when you learn to format.
Till then it’s just so much blather.
Of course, given the history, it may well be just blather no matter how it’s presented.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.