Holding the UMC Hostage 01 - The Setting

Comments (3)

Comment Feed

Withholding apportionments

So . . . I'm guessing Andy Langford just knows what actions the church takes that make disciples?

That anyone in a position of authority and understanding in the United Methodist Church would say such a thing strongly suggests that, in fact, there is a lack of understanding and certainly should be no authority.

Geoffrey more than 8 years ago

It's a threat from the right

it's worth pointing out that the threats to not pay apportionments are from churches on the right-side of the debate almost always. that's to say that the people WINNING the votes on sexuality are PROTESTING the church for allowing a minority (say 45%) view to exist. it never made much sense to me. I think they are motivated more by a desire to exert power and control over others. Further, too often i find the protestors are facing their own financial struggles and inability to attract new members so they disguise the fact that they can't pay with this sancitmony about not paying. if winning every vote is insufficient for these people one wonders how much domination of other people they require.

if you think you can be a church while fostering that kind of relationships, good luck.

Chicago more than 8 years ago

Withholding apportionments

1. Based on the information provided, the withholding appears to be the correct response to the unGodly actions of arrogant people in appropriated positions of leadership.

2. The only correct choice today would be for a congregation to withhold apportionments that support repeated attacks on Israel and on God-given rights that are supposed to be protected by the US Bill of Rights. That is the only ethical choice.

Donald C Kosloff more than 8 years ago