Constitutional Amendment to Be Revisited

by

by

Comments (7)

Comment Feed

Here we go again

One more incident that proves distrust is a huge problem within the United Methodist Church. How does any institution survive without trust?

betsy 13 days ago

Amendment

This was a poorly disguised attempt to get the amendment passed without anyone noticing. Look at all the people that saw the wording prior to the vote and how long it took before the deleted words were found. Get real...

Carl 14 days ago

UMM

With the new word does this mean that women will join the United Methodist Men? Since this amendment only deals with women issues, men won’t be able to join the UMW.

Mike Whiteside 16 days ago

Holy smokes!

Are Methodists not just really great people! These guys that voted no actually read the text, thought about it, and voted their beliefs. They should really be complimented. The sentence failed 746-56 in GC. Really interested to see the next voting.

Chad 16 days ago

Amendment

This comes under the category of YGTBKM! We are just now finding out that the wording was incorrect. Unbelievable. These amendments should have been checked and double checked before they went to the conferences for a vote. Think of the wasted hours. I noticed that the women bishops' letter quoted the incorrect wording. Curious. This undermines the credibility of our entire process. And now we vote on it again. Suppose the amendment had passed as presented would it have been invalidated or would we have simply glossed over this error and let it stand?

Kevin 16 days ago

Interesting

With the deletion of that erroneous statement (there can be no doubt Jesus is/was both male and Divine), I predict the proposed amendment will likely pass.

John 16 days ago

Reply to myself

I know it’s a bit silly to reply to myself. What does it say about our Denomination’s leadership that a sentence that was rejected by an overwhelming majority of General Conference was nonetheless inserted into the text of a proposed Constitutional amendment submitted to all conferences for consideration and voting? Were there not enough eyeballs overseeing the process? I know people make mistakes, but this was a whopper especially in our current atmosphere where so much of the laity, whether “traditionalist” or “progressive” mistrust the Church’s leadership at this point in time. Not meaning to condemn, but this development is really bad timing for the Bishops as we all wait to see how each of the three models for a way forward will be drafted for consideration by the special called conference.

John 16 days ago