The UMC does have many of the problems and apostate leaders that Peter suggests. In addition to Bishops Talbert and Shamana, I think of Bishop Sprague and Bishop Galvan (now retired). We also have some bold, scriptural bishops who are trying to stand firm against the culture and the liberal theology, etc. of the denominational hierarchy: Bishops Timothy Whitaker, Scott Jones, William Willimon, James Swanson and Robert Hayes, for example. All were elected by delegates at General Conferences; since 1988 those have become more and more scriptural, hence more and more scriptural bishops have been elected to lead. Turning the denomination is like turning a battleship, so it takes time--but it's happening. Texas' analysis above is accurate.
My issue of primary import, after scriptural integrity, is abortion. Admittedly, in 1972 the UMC was on the wrong side (so was I then). While it still is in many ways, it is making progress there also. At GC'04 the "loving, caring, tolerant, diverse" UMs would not allow me to speak in favor of legislation simply because my pro-life position disagreed with their pro-choice position. I believe God used their hard-heartedness to pass legislation more pro-life than I would even have asked for. (See the September 2004 issue of the Lifewatch newsletter on their website.)
It seems to me that God works with individuals on one level and institutions and nations on another level. Be careful, Peter, that you do not judge all individuals within the UMC based on the actions of the institution. First, you shouldn't be judging at all: that's God's job. And second, you might misjudge an individual and the institution.
To quote myself:
"Are there good people in the UMC? Of course there are. There are good Communists, too, but that doesn't make Communism any less subject to a blanket condemnation."
The California-Nevada Conference of the UMC doesn't give a hairy-rats' patoot about the Book of Discipline or Scripture. You need only attend service at Glide Memorial when the Bishop is there to see the truth of this. That the rest of the UMC tolerates this without excommunicating them (Glide) speaks volumes about the UMC.
A couple years ago one of the Presbyterian synods considered revoking recognition of Baptism in the UMC due to the degree which the UMC has strayed from Christian thought. The Presbyterians considered this.
I'm not the only one who has noticed the UMC going off in weird directions.
Bishop Shamana, by the way, recently lost a court battle to seize the property of the congregation of St. Luke's in Fresno. The congregation held the property in a properly recorded congregational corporation and the Conference tried to seize the property when the congregation disassociated with the UMC.
She wanted the California Supreme Court to overthrow a century and a half of State property law in favor of the Book of Discipline. I found it quite hypocritical of Bishop Shamana that the BoD was suddenly important when the issue was $4 million worth of real estate but irrelevant when the issue is atheism, homosexuality, paganism, animism, or etc.
Three cheers to anyone tryng to stem the tide of secularist thought pervading the church.
I just don't see them winning this one.
I forgot to add that the CA/NV Conference pays for "Marriage Encounter" weekends for avowed homosexuals and lesbians out of apportionments and that fact has led about thirty congregations, including St. Luke's, to leave the UMC.
You can't be against homosexuality and lesbianism while helping such people have better gay and lesbian relationships.
The truth is that they are not against these practices.