Why do the traditionalist Methodist need to leave at all? Shouldn't the ones leaving be those that want to get away from the traditions the Methodist Church was built on? It seems like John Wesley, who founded the denomination, is the one forced to leave. The foxes have taken over the hen house kind of deal, it looks like to me.
That seems the logical thing that should happen. Only the leftists or non-traditionalists love them some retirement package. they will tell you they love the UMC as they work tirelessly to upend it over and over and over again. But what they really love is the structural power they have (structural power they wouldn't have if they left). Some folks on youtube claim that the U.S. has either a majority or a plurality of ppl who agree with the left leaning stances. The numbers don't bear that out, and the leftist clergy and bishops know this. (They also think they're wiser than us plebs). So, although they'll tell you they're being "prophetic" they aren't willing to suffer as any actual prophet had to suffer. they want control- and they know as long as their run the institution- then most members aren't paying attention, so they will default to staying with the leftist power structure. - Sad.
Methodists unhappy with UMC can become Biblical Christians and worship God and fellowship at any time and in any place without a denomination or their buildings.
Just leave and become independent. People are the church. Bishops and bureaucrats can go and take a running jump. Without the people the Bishops and bureaucrats won't get paid!
An empty church doesn't have much value today. Maybe the membership could all leave and meet in another church building or meeting place and later come back and buy it at its true market value.
This is my thought. If the denominational Body changes its doctrine against the will of the local Church. Is that a consideration for leaving the said denomination? For example, your local Church joined the denomination because of its doctrine standards. If those standards changed should not the local Church have a legitimate right to exit if the new standards aren’t compatible with the local Church?
Your thought is definitely worth consideration. Of course, the local church should have every right to exit a denomination that has changed its doctrine. The essence of the church is the word of God, if the word of God is changed in any way, then the church definitely needs to reconsider its existence - that's why I believe that every local church should be given the freedom to decide.
@@gideonob thanks for your response. The major issue is the conference/denomination owns the property. As you and I have noted if said Church feels the doctrine has changed (not polity, etc), the Faith we live by is altered, and the local Church prefers to hold to the previous doctrine under which it joined the denomination, it should be released without any cost or repercussions.
You can't go against the word of God, and enter the kingdom of heaven. Scripture is against the LGBTQ lifestyle, it's written plain as day thesolonians example.
Question is how did the conservative or should I say traditional church who won every vote get the 💩 end of the stick. Why aren’t we giving the orders.
I would guess the church could simply cede the church property to the parent organization and just walk away. It could then for a new church, perhaps without the name Methodist, perhaps with a new name, doctrines, theology and beliefs and no affiliation to the Methodist churches. Just like a person can just stop going to their church and be free from its control. If the church members want to keep their church property, perhaps that would not be allowed, if the parent church owns the local church property. This is a free country. Nobody belongs to a church in the sense that someone owns a car. At least some church members have no money invested in any church property, and they can simply stop going to the church and join another one that they like better. That was the case with some people I know. Probably the main people concerned are ones who have spent a lot of money to pay for church property. But in a sense they donated their money. Like a gift to the church. Or not?
This unfortunate current split in the UMC reminds me of a similar split in the southern UMC in the 1960s. When I was growing up in the 1960's South, many churches left the UMC because they opposed racial integration, believing the Bible called for continued segretation of blacks and white. My wife and I were both sad and excited as we recently transferred from a church leaving the UMC. We have joined a UMC church that is staying the course until the next annual conference. We would have preferred to see our old church support, and the UMC approve, one of the other options than the Traditional Plan. We hate to see the church divided over this one issue of acceptance of gay marriage/clergy. We have gay relatives, and it appears to us they were made by God and nature this way, and deserve full acceptance and support in the church. We suppose the broader issue is how literally we interpret the Bible. We think our society's understanding of homosexuality has improved over the last many centuries.
Jesus is shaking his head in disgust. He never said a single word about homosexuality. Love God with your whole heart and your neighbor as yourself. You really think Jesus would discriminate against an entire group of people? No wonder the next generation is turned off
It’s a medically proven fact that God creates people to like having with sex with people of the same gender. Can you reference that study because I missed it
Why do the traditionalist Methodist need to leave at all? Shouldn't the ones leaving be those that want to get away from the traditions the Methodist Church was built on?
It seems like John Wesley, who founded the denomination, is the one forced to leave.
The foxes have taken over the hen house kind of deal, it looks like to me.
Sounds like typical "I didn't leave them, they left me" but they're retaining the name.
That seems the logical thing that should happen. Only the leftists or non-traditionalists love them some retirement package. they will tell you they love the UMC as they work tirelessly to upend it over and over and over again. But what they really love is the structural power they have (structural power they wouldn't have if they left). Some folks on youtube claim that the U.S. has either a majority or a plurality of ppl who agree with the left leaning stances. The numbers don't bear that out, and the leftist clergy and bishops know this. (They also think they're wiser than us plebs). So, although they'll tell you they're being "prophetic" they aren't willing to suffer as any actual prophet had to suffer. they want control- and they know as long as their run the institution- then most members aren't paying attention, so they will default to staying with the leftist power structure. - Sad.
The leadership is much more progressive than the average member in the pew. They have been maneuvering for this for a long time.
John Wesley didn't found a denomination. We didn't want his societies to leave the Church of England. they only did so after his death.
Thst us exactly what’s happening.
Methodists unhappy with UMC can become Biblical Christians and worship God and fellowship at any time and in any place without a denomination or their buildings.
We hold title deed to our property united methodist doesnt why cant we leave when we want thats the.way we joined
Just leave and become independent. People are the church. Bishops and bureaucrats can go and take a running jump. Without the people the Bishops and bureaucrats won't get paid!
An empty church doesn't have much value today. Maybe the membership could all leave and meet in another church building or meeting place and later come back and buy it at its true market value.
In my area, several Methodist Churches have closed
Spiritual splits are not the question here it's the splitting of church properties.
This is my thought. If the denominational Body changes its doctrine against the will of the local Church. Is that a consideration for leaving the said denomination? For example, your local Church joined the denomination because of its doctrine standards. If those standards changed should not the local Church have a legitimate right to exit if the new standards aren’t compatible with the local Church?
Your thought is definitely worth consideration. Of course, the local church should have every right to exit a denomination that has changed its doctrine. The essence of the church is the word of God, if the word of God is changed in any way, then the church definitely needs to reconsider its existence - that's why I believe that every local church should be given the freedom to decide.
@@gideonob thanks for your response. The major issue is the conference/denomination owns the property. As you and I have noted if said Church feels the doctrine has changed (not polity, etc), the Faith we live by is altered, and the local Church prefers to hold to the previous doctrine under which it joined the denomination, it should be released without any cost or repercussions.
Can an individual who is no longer a part of the UMC but attends still leave and join the Globel United methodist church on their own.
The GMC is not taking individuals, they are only taking churches.
You can't go against the word of God, and enter the kingdom of heaven. Scripture is against the LGBTQ lifestyle, it's written plain as day thesolonians example.
Gave up on the UMC many years ago when I saw that it is just another money machine.
Quite a few Churches in other Denominations are, too!
Question is how did the conservative or should I say traditional church who won every vote get the 💩 end of the stick. Why aren’t we giving the orders.
No guts
I would guess the church could simply cede the church property to the parent organization and just walk away. It could then for a new church, perhaps without the name Methodist, perhaps with a new name, doctrines, theology and beliefs and no affiliation to the Methodist churches. Just like a person can just stop going to their church and be free from its control. If the church members want to keep their church property, perhaps that would not be allowed, if the parent church owns the local church property. This is a free country. Nobody belongs to a church in the sense that someone owns a car. At least some church members have no money invested in any church property, and they can simply stop going to the church and join another one that they like better. That was the case with some people I know. Probably the main people concerned are ones who have spent a lot of money to pay for church property. But in a sense they donated their money. Like a gift to the church. Or not?
2548
Shame on all you quitters. What about your vow? WWJD I ask. Not what you quitters have done.
This unfortunate current split in the UMC reminds me of a similar split in the southern UMC in the 1960s. When I was growing up in the 1960's South, many churches left the UMC because they opposed racial integration, believing the Bible called for continued segretation of blacks and white.
My wife and I were both sad and excited as we recently transferred from a church leaving the UMC. We have joined a UMC church that is staying the course until the next annual conference. We would have preferred to see our old church support, and the UMC approve, one of the other options than the Traditional Plan. We hate to see the church divided over this one issue of acceptance of gay marriage/clergy. We have gay relatives, and it appears to us they were made by God and nature this way, and deserve full acceptance and support in the church. We suppose the broader issue is how literally we interpret the Bible. We think our society's understanding of homosexuality has improved over the last many centuries.
It's about much more than gays. Greed and corruption are bigger reasons to leave in my opinion.
All this is over whether God creates people gay which is now a medically proven fact. So sad.
You are wrong....God makes NO mistakes.
Jesus is shaking his head in disgust. He never said a single word about homosexuality. Love God with your whole heart and your neighbor as yourself. You really think Jesus would discriminate against an entire group of people? No wonder the next generation is turned off
No he did not creat gays frombirth
It’s a medically proven fact that God creates people to like having with sex with people of the same gender. Can you reference that study because I missed it
Wrong