• SquishyPandaDev@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    United Methodists are no longer cool. They voted against gay marriage. And yes, to be fair, a good number of local congregations were pissed

    • Nahvi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That seems to be more of a kick-the-can vote to allow the more conservative churches time to leave.

      More than 6,000 United Methodist congregations — a fifth of the U.S. total — have now received permission to leave the denomination amid a schism over theology and the role of LGBTQ people in the nation’s second-largest Protestant denomination

      With these departures, progressives are expected to propose changing church law at the next General Conference in 2024 to allow for same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBTQ people.

      https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2023-07-06/one-in-five-united-methodist-congregations-in-the-us-have-left-the-denomination-over-lgbtq-conflicts

      • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not that I give a fuck whether the UMC survives, but you are correct. The bigots are leaving the denomination and many/most that left joined the Global Methodist Church.

        The only reason that the UMC wasn’t gay as fuck years ago is because the denomination is global and the African churches are bigoted against LGBTQ+. Their votes plus a fifth of USA congregations was enough to guarantee a schism. They’re just being strategic about the breakup because of how property is owned in the denomination.

      • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That seems to be more of a kick-the-can vote to allow the more conservative churches time to leave.

        “We only voted against human rights so the people who are against those human rights can leave with all their money and property intact, we promise!”

        Man, you’re making these “progressive” churches sound wonderful!

        • Nahvi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Compromises are useful when you want something. When your side is about to win you don’t blow up the organization unless you have a mental problem.

          Also, from what I can tell the gay bishops voted for the compromise. If they thought it was the right way to handle it, I am not going to shame them for it.

          We will see if they make good on it next year.

          • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Compromises are useful when you want something. When your side is about to win you don’t blow up the organization unless you have a mental problem.

            Exactly. Like when the north was about to win the civil war, Lincoln allowed some slavery to be legal.

            Or when the allies were on the brink of victory, they went and allowed some concentraition camps to open again.

            Also, folding and voting against human rights to keep your hand on some property doesn’t sound like winning to me.

            Maybe you meant the Charlie Sheen kind of “winning”?

            Also, from what I can tell the gay bishops voted for the compromise. If they thought it was the right way to handle it, I am not going to shame them for it.

            I will! Fuck them, it was a shit decision, good job appeasing the regressives, well done guys.

            • Nahvi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The examples listed are examples of violent victories not political ones. Even then, they imply backtracking instead of maintaining the status quo until victory.

              This was not a change in policy, it maintained the existing one, so that they could finalize their “divorce” amicably. There is a ton of properties as well as pensions involved. Properties that the UMC technically owns but was paid for by local congregations.

              It might be worth noting that those gay bishops that I mentioned aren’t actually allowed under current church rules. If they forced the issue and the conservative churches brought them to court instead, there is no telling what the courts would decide. Making deals was likely the smart choice, even if it meant waiting a bit until they start offering gay marriages to their parishioners.