Liberal UMC rejects cutting funds to conservative churches; calls it 'white privilege'
A liberal regional body of the United Methodist Church rejected a proposal to cut funds intended to help churches overseas, despite their support for a plan that maintains the denomination‚Äôs stance against homosexuality.
The leadership of the California-Nevada Annual Conference released a statement last week rejecting the withholding of apportionments and also a proposed disaffiliation with the Western Jurisdiction of the UMC.
In addressing nonpayment, the Conference leadership stated that withholding funds from the Central Conferences, or United Methodist bodies outside of the U.S., would be racist....
The Quiet Christian wrote: I have been in many churches. None of them were racist. Not all of them were "integrated." So what is being proposed by the gentleman from Lincoln is that to be truly non-racist, churches have to ensure that they are integrated to a certain, yet unspecified percentage. Which I find preposterous.
Yes it is. A libs answer to racism is to do something on the basis of skin color. They don't see the hypocrisy, because they are the hypocrisy.
I would suggest you fellows read the first paragraph that SermonAudio put up for this article
It appears that the liberals in the Methodist Church even consider it has racist elements in it. Being a member of the Methodist Church many years ago, it appears that nothing has really changed in it when it comes to a racist problem. It did and I still does apparently have a racist problem.
RNS wrote: ‚ÄúI argued that white evangelical voters have really shifted from being values voters to being what I call ‚Äėnostalgia voters,‚Äô‚ÄĚ said Jones. ‚ÄúThey‚Äôre voting to protect a past view of America that they feel is slipping away. That‚Äôs driving evangelical politics much more than the old culture-war dynamics.‚ÄĚ
--"Most US faith groups say country is on the wrong track"
I'm very curious how I can physically speak with the pastor concerning things that are happening in my world regarding the end or book of Revelations??? Very very important hence why I'm posting here.. Please don't ignore 5132668708
Right for sure QC. Like being non-racist is a matter of percentages based off the average race break down in the given area.
Not being racist is a matter of the heart. It stops there and has nothing to do with percentages or anything of that sort. Nor will having perfectly integrated churches solve the problem...
The only racist I have noticed on here is the one from Nebraska who sits in his basement eating cool ranch Doritos, while looking for any way to stir up trouble... ūüßíūüßíūüŹĽūüßíūüŹľūüßíūüŹĹūüßíūüŹĺūüßíūüŹŅ all 1
I have been in many churches. None of them were racist. Not all of them were "integrated." So what is being proposed by the gentleman from Lincoln is that to be truly non-racist, churches have to ensure that they are integrated to a certain, yet unspecified percentage. Which I find preposterous.
Jim Lincoln says... "but if a person was in the typical Methodist Church if he looked around all the people people see would be White ones."
I would like to make a point about actual racism...
First a question, is it racist to notice different skin colors? Is it wrong to describe people by physical traits such as hair patterns, eyes, or skin color?
If the answer is yes, than we are in a hopeless fight to try to change how we are designed. To look around a church and say "humph all the people are here are white/black" is natural for people. It doesn't change the character of the observed or the observer and doesn't make either side racist. What makes racism is purposely denying someone the same treatment as you would have yourself over skin.
I am so sick of our culture shoving skin color in the faces of those who wouldn't have given it a thought otherwise. Humans are going to forever see the world in color. We are not going to look around like it's a black and white movie. But treating all people the same doesn't mean we will see them in the same physical way. It honestly doesn't matter. Just like eye color or hair pattern, we are all made in a beautiful way by the Lord and we will be able to forever see and observe the amazing design of our God in black, white, and b
QC, of course this was some decades ago, but if a person was in the typical Methodist Church if he looked around all the people people see would be White ones. IFB congregations would be more racially mixed than that-- at least in later years. Methodist congregations certainly were divided by race and culture. So why even many of the Whites in the congregations -usually- did not express racists' ideas, though for a fact I knew it happened, I don't think the article is off about saying that there are racist problems. These are modern day Methodists stating as such.
One thing I cannot tell is whether or not those church bodies are making decisions based on racism, which I find very hard to believe, but perhaps thry are more interested in home missions than foreign missions?
One thing I can tell is that worldly concepts of supposed conflict and power spread from liberal college professors have more influence than the Lord and His concepts from His word, the Bible.
Something of an interesting article in that it is an accurate description of what's happening in the "United" Methodist Church. The number of women bishops are appalling.
The article is correct in saying that American Methodists aren't supporting non-white Methodist Church is outside the United States for racist reasons. The Conferences in the United States probably have some residual ideas that those are the actual Christian groups or at least groups closest to being Christian in the Methodist Church are part of the Central Conference. The church outside the United States probably could use the physical aid that the American church can provide.
But, the article also shows that the American Methodist churches are theologically bankrupt‚ĚóūüĎé