Mat mentioned in another thread that the UMC was preparing to hold a special session to address unity issues caused by the UMC’s current positions on social issues.While reading about this session, I found this PDF detailing the four proposals on the table. I thought others might find it interesting as well. s3.amazonaws.com/Website_Properties_UGC/learn/documents/GC2019-Plan-comparison.pdf
OK Dave, its Sunday afternoon and you just compounded my headache. I think I would go with the Traditional/Modified Traditional Plan. I’m not sure what the financial liability is for churches/clergy that leave (there seems to be in the other plans). The Simply Plan seems to be a congregational network under the banner of the UMC, though United may be paradoxical, as it takes the U out of UMC. What I don’t know is the cost/liability of a congregation to leave the UMC under current policy in regards to property, pension, etc. It seems for the sake of unity you can have churches where Wesley could preach and churches which would make a Metropolitan Community Church look conservative, all under the same flag, or rainbow.Mat
Sorry Mat. I probably should have included a trigger warning.
And the one most favored is called the one church. All of them bring about division. Social issues is a euphemism for the problem with the lgbtqi etc There are 2 camps in the UMC essentially. The progressives and traditionalists. The UMC allows now for homosexuals to be members and full participation in all areas of service as part of their inclusive theology. They do not yet ordain practicing the operative word, homosexuals to be ministers. This will cause a split most likely. The problem with the 2 camps is neither one of them operate in orthodox interpretation of the Bible. It promises to be interesting.
Here’s a link to how the conference is going so far:www.umnews.org/en/news/gc2019-daily-feb-24It looks like, despite the Bishops, the more conservative element may prevail. It reads (I may be wrong) as if they may be planning on how churches and ministers can depart with property and some portion of their pension. However, it an’t over till the fat Bishops sing!
that those in leadership are often so out of touch with the feelings on the ground?This discussion would never have even reached this stage had it not been for leadership allowing a bit here, a bit there. I have noticed something a BIT like that in our own denomination: The executive level seems to see some things so much differently from the field. Why? Mainly, I think it is because we elect our leaders based on name recognition…and the leaders, in turn, often have the means of putting people out there so that they develop name recognition. Thus, we tend to elect pretty much who they WANT elected–or at least people they are pretty much OK with.