Posted on 06/22/2024 6:37:00 PM PDT by fwdude
The UMC is on a death spiral now, so they have nothing to lose by acting in bad faith with those trying to leave. They can be as satanic as they want.
Stop sending “Apportionments!”
They won’t leave as an identifiable church, though, including the long-held legacy name of their congregation. Even that belongs to the witches now running the UMC. They’ll have to rebrand and rename, starting with NOTHING.
The problem is that the denomination probably controls the buildings. The congregation can leave, but they most likely have to leave the buildings behind. Buildings that were built with funds from that local congregation.
This is certainly real. I know someone who went through this ordeal with a loved one, from not long ago, who was buried at the church they wanted to leave.
It's wrong. But power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely -- like the bishops of this church organization.
In the end, it's well past time to move on and remember that on this earth, "nothing lasts forever."
“The local church is family.”
Then make a local church. If the church they attend is so heaped in tradition but determined so by an organization not tied to the locality, then you have to ask if the chicken or the egg was first. And without the people, the roosters, the eggs don’t mean much.
wy69
The only problem with telling people just to leave is that Deep State is buying off Big Religion with taxpayer dollars.
Who needs parishioners when Deep State can collect and distribute for you.
Don’t believe me, check out the billions in PPP money churches got for submitting to the lockdown.
And how much Big Religion is getting now for helping Deep State flood the nation with migrants.
Life is not fair.
The challenge they face should make them stronger.
They got baited and switched by evil people.
“...but they should be able to leave without losing any of those things.”
Unfortunately, they are not going to get it if the church decides that. And if the courts won’t take it up, the church goer is trapped into giving up things to walk. The church founders set up the system to bind the churches together to fall under the religious scribing of the Wesley doctrines, ones written over 200 years ago, and by joining in “part way” the current people have stepped into the trap. So the local person accepted the ruling of the Methodist movement by joining. They are the investors and take the chance the company will not change. There’s no money back quarantee like with knives you buy on TV.
In the business world, and that’s all we’re really talking about here, this would not have been a good investment. If you supply money to your investment and have no say in what it does, then you gamble. They lost. The stock went in another direction. So they really have two choices, walk or try to get people into the main organization that will be more receptive to their wishes. But it hasn’t happened so far in over 200 years. That should have been a red flag for them from the start as the church didn’t indicate a conservative approach.
wy69
“...but they should be able to leave without losing any of those things.”
Unfortunately, they are not going to get it if the church decides that. And if the courts won’t take it up, the church goer is trapped into giving up things to walk. The church founders set up the system to bind the churches together to fall under the religious scribing of the Wesley doctrines, ones written over 200 years ago, and by joining in “part way” the current people have stepped into the trap. So the local person accepted the ruling of the Methodist movement by joining. They are the investors and take the chance the company will not change. There’s no money back quarantee like with knives you buy on TV.
In the business world, and that’s all we’re really talking about here, this would not have been a good investment. If you supply money to your investment and have no say in what it does, then you gamble. They lost. The stock went in another direction. So they really have two choices, walk or try to get people into the main organization that will be more receptive to their wishes. But it hasn’t happened so far in over 200 years. That should have been a red flag for them from the start as the church didn’t indicate a conservative approach.
wy69
I believe the problem is money.
Doesn’t the conference own the buildings?
To prevail, the congregations should just leave and reestablish in other buildings not owned by the conference.
Screw a bunch of legal wrangling, just leave, walk away.
“...that is a matter of principle.”
Like I mentioned in another post, one the methodist church’s major acts in it’s early years was to set up the religion to be run by the parent organization at their whim and way. Their theories on religion were originally based out of Wesley though processes within the Church of England. Wesley changed that when he created a religious business of making ways to bind the churches together under one non-local determining group. It copied the same theories as the Catholic Church which today is having the same problems of ruling their practitioners. And the big guys/gals are going to protect the organization before they bow to the locals. I believe this is why there are more nd more small churches sprouting up in cities not affiliated with large groups like the Vatigan, the Mormons in Salt Lake, the Baptist World Alliance, the Lutheran World Federation...there’s more. Thesed little churches are slowly growing with their more bendable theologies.
Being progressive in large based religion is a toss up. But it still is catagorized within the parent organization. So you either bend with the wind, or snap. And the only other choice is dig yourself up and move to a new piece of earth.
wy69
“The issue is that the congregations have a lot of personal assets invested in the church”
But when they allowed their church to be placed under the wing of the United Methodists, they forgot to read the contract.
This is a little long, but tells the story:
While the UMC as a whole does not own assets, all of the assets of each of these groups are held in trust for the UMC as a whole. This is the famous “trust clause” of the UMC, which reads, in part:
“All properties of United Methodist local churches and other United Methodist agencies and institutions are held, in trust, for the benefit of the entire denomination, and ownership and usage of church property is subject to the Discipline. … In consonance with the legal definition and self-understanding of The United Methodist Church (see ¶ 141), and with particular reference to its lack of capacity to hold title to property, The United Methodist Church is organized as a connectional structure, and titles to all real and personal, tangible and intangible property held at jurisdictional, annual, or district conference levels, or by a local church or charge, or by an agency or institution of the Church, shall be held in trust for The United Methodist Church and subject to the provisions of its Discipline. Titles are not held by The United Methodist Church (see ¶ 807.1) or by the General Conference of The United Methodist Church, but instead by the incorporated conferences, agencies, or organizations of the denomination, or in the case of unincorporated bodies of the denomination, by boards of trustees established for the purpose of holding and administering real and personal, tangible and intangible property.” (Book of Discipline ¶ 2501; emphasis added)
In other words, the UMC as a whole doesn’t own anything, but ownership by specific UMC-related legal persons is subject to the provisions of The Book of Discipline. This applies to most famously to local churches, but also to districts, annual conferences, jurisdictions, and boards and agencies.
When the founders of the local churches joined, they joined this trust. So do they own anything, yes the locals own it all. They just can’t do anything with it without the clearance of the big club because everything is in trust to them and the locals gave it to them. The locals gambled they would be happy with the parent organization being on total control as long as the biggies wanted. They chose poorly.
A full reading on that is here:
wy69
“Don’t believe me, check out the billions in PPP money churches got for submitting to the lockdown. And how much Big Religion is getting now for helping Deep State flood the nation with migrants.
Don’t disagree with you at all. But that’s a problem attached to the government and those are people the voters put in. The government uses a lot more organizations than the religious groups to get things done. They’re just another outlet. The US government is run just like many organizations. The don’t wear uniforms, they hide behind the collective, they lie, and they are in it more for their cause than the people. Almost sounds like any terrorist organization doesn’t it?
wy69
In that case, just start quoting Scripture.
IMO, it’s all about the money. Land, facilities, buildings, retirement/investment funds, etc. The conference has some fiduciary hold on what’s keeping the dissenters from just leaving - walking away.
They are also old and expensive to keep up. That’s the issue we are having.
Actually I think the rules recently enacted at the Denominations General Conference and the Annual Conference a few weeks ago does not prevent a congregation from leaving, per se, they “just” cannot take their property with them. By the incorporation and structure of the United Methodist Church all church property is the property on the denomination. THAT rule now makes formally leaving more difficult, because the leaving congregation has to start over financially and in terms of getting a church property.
I have argued with one United Methodist I know, that the UMC is ignoring that what funds the higher entities of the UMC have/had in terms of financially helping grow the church’s properties, those monies came from the congregations, including the congregations now seeking to leave, and in many cases the national denomination’s contribution was smaller in value than the local congregation’s building fund they raised on their own.
But the “Liberals” in the UMC are blocking any such recognition. Their attitude is “they can leave but the property is ‘ours’ “.
The request and process to leave is carried over from a prior policy period when Churches wishing to disaffiliate and meet the agree-upon criterion could take their property with them. The process was deliberately stalled by the more leftist UMC conferences of which Alabama-West Florida is one of them.
This is a definite breach of contract and SHOULD be taken to the civil courts for adjudication. The conference has violated a contract with its members.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.