African UM Leadership Claims "Gross Disenfranchisement"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 เม.ย. 2024
- The Africa Initiative released a statement dealing with their consensus positions with respect to the primary issues before the UM General Conference next week. There has been a good deal of confusion about how United Methodists in Africa are perceiving their treatment by UM leadership. Recent statements from the UM Africa Forum and Africa Voices of Unity have made it clear that they have not been treated well. The Africa Initiative is a final nail in this coffin. This calls into the question the legitimacy of next week's meeting, as well as any decisions reached. If the assembled body is happy making decisions without the input of the full breadth of African voices, then this makes a loud statement as to the character of such a body.
Got of the ride too & the church we serve has more than doubled, so grateful we made it out from the institution 🙏
Well said.
If true "regionalization" is what the UMC is seeking, then allow the central region to disaffiliate and be "free." Otherwise, it is a matter of UMC America saying to the churches outside of the US that we are rich, we control the money, and you must kowtow to our wishes no matter how much you disagree.
On UMCdotorg Burton Edwards states, "Since one of the regions would be the United States, United Methodists there would have, for the first time, authority to adapt the Discipline in the same ways that every other regional conference would be able to do." Makes it sound like US is 1 region.
I very easily could have misremembered. There are also multiple regionalization plans, as I recall.
@@plainspokenpod I meant my comment as : There is confusion around the issue, but I think the hierarchy knows what they are planning to push.
I was just wondering because I have not heard anything about it- did the European and Philippine delegates get their letters on time/ in time?
The fact it passed at the Charlotte General Conference, will the African vote “stop” it from happening?
Almost certainly, unless African sensibilities have been massively misrepresented. Hypothetically, this is possible, though not likely...
Tell it, painfully obvious. How to kill a denomination. It's a shame. As a political "Liberal" who is also a "Conservative" Christian, there are a lot of us, I kinda prefer a different more theologically accurate term over calling these folks "Liberals" or 'Progressives". I am sorry, at this point it has gone way beyond Liberal or Conservative views of the faith. That is just my untrained opinion.
It is a frustrating scenario in which the terms we have don't always seem to fit really well. We work with what we are given...
I think the Africans are making pragmatic mistake by tying their objection to changing the Social Principles to their objection to regionalization in the face of disenfranchisement. From the progressive delegate's perspective, if a vote for regionalization is a vote that is unfair to Africans while helping gays, and a vote against regionalization is fair to Africans but hurts gays, then I am left with a choice between 2 compromises. Regionalization may even be seen as softening the blow of Western dominance on social issues. If instead they keep the issues separate, Africans have a clear moral upper hand in arguing against regionalization given the lack of representation.
Unfortunately, the Left does not care who they offend nor about the underhanded and deceitful tactics they use to achieve their goals. Their ends justify their means. Memories are short and most people lack the will to fight and/or stand up for what they know is right and biblical; all will be forgotten and water under the bridge soon enough. The Left worships and glorifies money and power; those are their gods and idols. They are the wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Jesus said if you love me, you will obey my commands. Many fail to live up to this requirement, but are repentant. The Left specifically chooses to disobey and are not repentant for their disobedience. They love the world; the love of the Father is not within them. This is why I say, there is no such thing as a liberal Christian, the liberal chooses disobedience because they know better than the Father.
Jeffrey, What do you have to say about the hacking of the Dakotas conference Q&A? You did a video praising the Q&A, but what about now that it seems that the publication was literally counterfeited? It seems you may have taken down the video, but what about a video response? Many who have seen the video already will go on thinking that this was a legit publication without your response on video.
So 1) I don't think anyone who watched my piece thought that the document was actually from the bishop or her people. The theory I advanced on the segment was that someone in the conference office had written it and would soon be fired. 2) It isn't clear that the document was counterfeited, hacked, or otherwise disrupted by external bad actors. They're trying to lay this at the feet of conservative groups. I currently think it is far more likely that someone within the conference office took the opportunity to make their beliefs known, and that whoever was in charge of the project was too sloppy to check the work before it was published. Moreover, they seem to have been irresponsible with the permissions placed on the document. 3) I did issue a statement here: plainspokenpod.substack.com/p/update-to-dakotas-story?r=17brpc. I only unpublished the piece because I want to put energy in some other directions right now, and the hysterics of the folks decrying this as some kind of criminal fraud is annoying me. Without me getting access to their Google account, I can't say what actually happened. They are saying what they are saying in large part because the document got so much attention. Hypothetically, if it were legitimate, they would still be saying the same thing because of the amount of heat that would come down on them if it were legitimate. We just have to trust them that they are telling the truth. I'm low on trust. My reporting was that the document was on the conference website and that it stood outside of UM institutional orthodoxy. I said whoever wrote it was going to be in trouble. All this is true. If anyone came away from my segment thinking that the bishop authored the piece, or that the delegation was standing against the will of the consensus opinion of the institution, then they didn't pay attention. I can't answer for people who don't pay attention.