Formal and Informal Talks Continue on UMC's Future



Comments (3)

Comment Feed

I too have a dream

Like the harvest of joy people I too have a dream. I dream of a time when Methodists will return to scriptural beliefs and turn against rationalism. I dream of a day when we once again emphasize transformed hearts, not accommodation of human sin and desires. Unlike the Harvest of Joy dreams, I know that mine will not happen in the near future. Neither side is going to budge. Hoping those on the otherside will change their minds is unrealistic. The numbers are against any local option being allowed any time in the near future. This is not about money or power, it is about two groups having a deeply committed and opposite belief in how best to serve God. The only sane way forward is a split into two denominations. Create two denominations (both without a name, but not allowed to use UMC). Provisionally name them progressive methodist and traditional methodist, so every one knows what they are choosing and allow them to name themselves at their first conference. Split the denomination property evenly between the two and then let the AC's decide which one to join. Let churches who disagree with their AC move to another one, with all of their property and without any financial penalty. Allow ministers to choose which one they want to join. Keep it simple and keep it fair. This is the easiest and sanest way to do this. No one can claim that they are the winner or loser. Continued fighting and resistance will only cause more people in the seats to leave (remember 44% identify as traditional/conservative, and 26% moderate) and eventually we will be fighting over who pays the insurance bills of massive numbers of closed churches. However that Baptists will thank us for all the conservatives that come join their churches.

Scott more than 2 years ago

I agree

Sounds kind of like the Connectional Conference plan. Kind of a shame that one was last on the list, it's certainly the best plan for the current situation.

The only flaw that I see is, what if 90% of the pastors decide to go on one side? You'll have too many for the spots, and not enough on the other side.

My guess is that we'd have to slow-roll the assignments as things played out.

JR more than 2 years ago

Insanity again

Insanity once again. Why do you think the same thing will produce different results? Have no illusion it will not, this only demonstrates the desperate measures the progressives are trying to pull. Why do you insist that we must stay together? It will not work. The bishops and progressives put all their eggs in one basket, never dreaming that their chosen one church plan would fail. Even though, time and time again it has. It is time to stop wasting time and money on a failed idea. Without going our separate ways, nothing will change, more will be hurt and turn away from the bickering church. Time is up, either we part or I propose a mass exodus from folks on both sides. If the leaders chose to not act, as they have done for years, we should vote with our feet and money. I doubt many want decades more of what we have been through for the last several years and conferences. Come up with a peaceful and fair split so that we may hopefully salvage our 2 ministries. And that is what it has been for several years, 2 separate distinct ministries. If neither side wants to be in ministry with the other, why continue the pain and agony? Insanity, to expect anything different, unless we wise up and split.

Tracy more than 2 years ago