The UMC: Leaving Behind the Hope of Dialogue



Comments (3)

Comment Feed

Chris Ritter has written a very thoughtful piece called "What Now"?

Here are some quotes from that post

"There is inherent injustice when those with no intention to follow the directives of General Conference nevertheless show up to vote. "

"If the whole Traditional Plan had passed GC2019, we would now have a roadmap for the future. Some would leave. Some would stay. All annual conference and local church property would be protected. I expect a movement will surface to simply finish what GC2019 started. The votes should be present to do that. But that will require a second impossibly ugly General Conference. Some on the traditional side want to press the advantage and some believe a replay of 2019 will be unacceptably damaging to the church."

"Whether we feel like it or not, we need to start talking to one another about the question we all are asking: What now?"

betsy more than 2 years ago

When you are championing the rights of one group of people

It is never helpful to run over another group of people in the process.

betsy more than 2 years ago

Maybe the dialogue should have happened before GC2019

When leadership was pushing the One Church Plan saying how we each answer the sexuality question is not a do or die issue and the WCA was saying we so not agree with that assessment of the situation. I have monitored the development of this conflict since GC2012. And the one thing I can say for sure is that whenever traditionalists said something was a problem for them, leadership turned a deaf ear. There is no dialogue when one party says something is a problem and the response is no it is not and we are going to force you to live with our perspective. That is exactly what happened when the Bishops trotted out the One Church Plan without any exit ramps. I am curious, do you now believe that how the sexuality question is answered is a do or die issue for traditionalists?

betsy more than 2 years ago