Don’t feel too bad. I read a news story about the UMC split and after reading it three times I still couldn’t figure out if the anti-LGBT people were leaving the UMC or vice-versa.I don’t know if that was bad writing on the reporter’s part or being deliberately vague so as to avoid offending somebody.
How is the church on the hook for that?
Typically if you receive stolen goods (or money) you are obligated to return them to the rightful owner. If you knew it was stolen, or any “reasonable person” should have known that it was stolen, then you could be prosecuted in addition to having to return it. But either way you don’t get to keep it.
My understanding is that the extremely conservative congregations and some individual members (anti-LGBTQ, etc.) are leaving the UMC for the newly-formed Global Methodist Church (GMC). I’ve been reading about this and talked recently to some conservative friends who are going through this now.
I’m sure the church accepted the ‘donations’ in good faith. But it was still ill-gotten gains, and it legally doesn’t belong to them. It’s a tough old world out there
Precisely.
Every time I read about these denominations splintering and reforming due to this or that, I’m reminded of this very apt discussion by Emo Philips:
The United Methodist Church is not particularly open to sexual diversity. While there’s no requirements on congregants, ministers must be cis-hetero. The UMC does not support non-hetero marriage.
And yet the bigots are leaving, because the UMC does not enforce the rules stridently enough. Some congregations are welcoming to all, and some ministers conduct any marriage ceremony. That diversity of belief is intolerable to the bigots.
I hope that enough leave that the UMC can make real changes.
Cites:
A classic. One of Emo’s crowning achievements.
That Philips bit is great, but I’ve got a pithier version for Baptist churches–Baptist churches reproduce by fission, like all bacteria. (I watched the number of First Baptist Churches in my home town nearly double over the course of 10 years, without any significant increase in the town’s population or demographics.)
I propose the term “Bapteria” to describe this.
Both of you get five chapels with open doors emoticons (if such exist).
Clergy abuse survivors propose new ‘zero tolerance’ law following outcry over Vatican appointment
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/clergy-abuse-survivors-propose-new-zero-tolerance-law-following-outcry-over-vatican-appointment/ar-AA1hzudN?ocid=windirect&cvid=25332ab5099d40c59aabed4c9a096e4b&ei=33
When Fernández was bishop of La Plata, Argentina, he refused to promptly remove one of his priests, Eduardo Lorenzo, who was repeatedly accused of abusing teens. Ten years after a victim first came forward, and hours after learning that an Argentine judge had ordered his arrest, Lorenzo was found dead in 2019 in what was ruled a suicide. Fernandez had stood by Lorenzo and officiated at his funeral.
THAT is exactly the wrong guy for the job. THAT is the kind of guy that guy who has the job needs to ferret out.
Spiritual ceremonies my bleeding ass.
From the beginning, people at the ceremony were taken aback.
“Several of the witnesses who watched the blessings indicated that nothing seemed right about it,” Westlake Police Capt. Gerald Vogel said in an interview
Well, the leadership of the Southern Baptists are at it again.
Their leadership is supporting a call to block expanding the statute of limitations on sex crimes. This expansion would enable more people to be charged with sex crimes or with failing to report sex crimes when required by law to do so.
“The denomination’s president, Bart Barber, who has supported abuse reforms, said in a statement that he takes “full responsibility” for the denomination joining the brief. He said he was asked for approval by the S.B.C.’s legal team and regrets not giving it the attention he should have. “I know that my credibility with you is harmed by this, perhaps irreparably,” he wrote in an open statement to Southern Baptists.
Yet, in that same statement, he said he is undecided on the matter. “I am not sure exactly what I think about statutes of limitation. I think they are a mixed bag,” he wrote. “I am uncomfortable with the harm statutes of limitations can do, but I also think that they play a valid role in the law sometimes.” "
I am saddened but not at all surprised.
I can’t find a definitive cite on Southern Baptist theology, but it would certainly be ironic if a religious sect that believes in original sin is opposed to expanding statutes of limitations.
I think it would be helpful to know what he means by “the harm statutes of limitation can do”. Does he mean the harm to a victim or harm to someone who’s anxiously awaiting the clock to expire?
He means harm to the dozens of SBC ministers who’ve committed sex crimes with their flocks. If the statute of limitations is lifted, then the SBC runs the risk of looking bad.
“As soon as I can find that fence, I am going to sit on it”.