88Warrior said:

---

UTExan said:

---

notex said:

---

It is utterly sad to see the rump UMC that is being left for dead/the radical unchristian management that is running it off a cliff.

It will fold at some point in the next 10 years I predict, as it is financially going to be unable to pay the bills. Since doctrine/dogma don't matter to them I wonder if there will be a combined "GLBTQ+ unity church" of some sort which involves a remnant of Presby./UMC/Episcopalian denominations that were devoured by them.

1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.#lefties

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) November 10, 2015

---

That's one reason they want such high exit fees and to retain property control. Selling off a lot of the church property would pay the program, pension and medical insurance costs for the remaining clergy and staff as the UMC continues to shrink rapidly.

---

The ones I feel for are those small churches that want to disaffiliate from the UMC but can't because of the exit fees. Our church (Asbury-Tulsa) is fortunate/blessed to have the resources to leave but a lot of others don't…

---

It's the same for small town Presbyterian Churches. Many would probably leave for the ECO or EPC as soon as they can, but the exit fees are too daunting. It's criminal what these people have done to our churches.

My only comfort is knowing that God will deal with these smug Pharisees eventually.

It's not that expensive or difficult (churches do it all the time), and it would seem to be far less expensive than an exit fee.

Jabin said:

---

Why don't the conservative members of those churches just leave, buy an older church, and start anew? Then there'd be no exit fee, would there?

---

Or they could leave en masse, dissolving the church, then offer to rent the old church property from the Conference until they saved enough to buy the property from the Conference which needs the cash.

UTExan said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Why don't the conservative members of those churches just leave, buy an older church, and start anew? Then there'd be no exit fee, would there?

---

Or they could leave en masse, dissolving the church, then offer to rent the old church property from the Conference until they saved enough to buy the property from the Conference which needs the cash.

---

The Church of England has been unwilling to sell unused property or fixtures to conservative congregations, preferring instead to sell it to Muslims. I doubt they'd fare better here given the pettiness of exit fees.

AGC said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Why don't the conservative members of those churches just leave, buy an older church, and start anew? Then there'd be no exit fee, would there?

---

Or they could leave en masse, dissolving the church, then offer to rent the old church property from the Conference until they saved enough to buy the property from the Conference which needs the cash.

---

The Church of England has been unwilling to sell unused property or fixtures to conservative congregations, preferring instead to sell it to Muslims. I doubt they'd fare better here given the pettiness of exit fees.

---

Thats not going to go over well on judgement day.

OnlyForNow said:

---

Some what.

Unfortunately, some churches were told if you vote to disaffiliate you hate gays and you're making the church an unwelcoming space.

Obviously, this wasn't done outright, but was there for the interpretation.

I personally think the pastor(s) should have completely removed themselves from this entirely and leave it 100% up to the congregation; their opinion is tied to their paycheck and their retirement.

---

Churches who worry about the label "hating gays" will not survive anyway (imploding UMC as an example) and will continue to stray farther away from biblical teachings. If that is their thinking and they are living in fear of what those outside the church think about them, then they acting opposite and in stark contrast to what the early disciples and church leaders were going through at the the beginning of Christianity. If the pastors are also in this line of thinking, then they are probably not a good fit for more conservative biblical doctrine that the GMC will be known for.

Many people are angry and frustrated with "why do we have to be the ones to leave". That's understandable, but it's in their best interest not to associate with unbiblical behavior.

A friend sent me this about Churches in Texas:

Texas does not recognize the trustee clause, so the UMC can't take their property. However, to avoid a lengthy legal battle, they can leave by following p. 2332 (?). They vote to disaffiliate, pay their last year's and present year's apportionments, and leave with all their assets. For the small churches who would have trouble paying the apportionments, the GMC has set up a help fund to assist them.

I respect that move though.

Fishing Fools said:

---

Texas does not recognize the trustee clause, so the UMC can't take their property. However, to avoid a lengthy legal battle, they can leave by following p. 2332 (?). They vote to disaffiliate, pay their last year's and present year's apportionments, and leave with all their assets. For the small churches who would have trouble paying the apportionments, the GMC has set up a help fund to assist them.

---

This is exactly what my home church is planning on doing.

Fishing Fools said:

---

Many people are angry and frustrated with "why do we have to be the ones to leave". That's understandable, but it's in their best interest not to associate with unbiblical behavior.

A friend sent me this about Churches in Texas:

Texas does not recognize the trustee clause, so the UMC can't take their property. However, to avoid a lengthy legal battle, they can leave by following p. 2332 (?). They vote to disaffiliate, pay their last year's and present year's apportionments, and leave with all their assets. For the small churches who would have trouble paying the apportionments, the GMC has set up a help fund to assist them.

---

This! It's the nuclear clause and I don't know why more rural churches don't use it. Vote to change your bylaws, and tell the UMC, or PCUSA that you are no longer affiliated with them.

Make them sue you to stay, not the other way around. If they sue you, you are in much better position to negotiate.

28.6% of our church's members were present and voting at our disaffiliation vote, which means that 72.4% of our membership did not vote. Of those voting, 66.3% voted to disaffiliate, which does not meet the 2/3 majority criterion. Either two more present and voting to disaffiliate or one of the nay votes switching would have tipped the scales the other way.

The closeness of the vote gets your attention, but the elephant in the room is that 72% of the members did not vote. I don't know how that compares to other churches we heard about who voted >90% to leave, but I would not be surprised if their decisions were also made by a similar minority of voting members.

...and the real lesson is that if you don't like the direction of the church, you are free to leave and go somewhere else. It is your soul and your own personal decision and you shouldn't let anyone else get a vote.

The Texas Annual Conference (Houston to Texarkana) approved disaffiliation of 294 congregations from the UMC. That's 49% of the current churches in the Texas Annual Conference. Becomes effective Jan 1, 2023. First Methodist Bryan, Christ Church in College Station as well as The Woodlands Methodist, are included in the 294 number that have now disaffiliated. Will have to find a complete listing at some point. I believe the Central Conference (DFW area) is scheduled for their charge conference vote in mid-January?

Community Presbyterian Church in Port Aransas has left the PC(USA) and joined the ECO.

Christ is prevailing.

It's ridiculous that the churches are blackmailed into this anyways.

If by the giving of the church they have to devote that amount of money to outreach/missions/etc (not for use for the betterment of the church itself) but they got to choose the avenue for the expenditure of the money, I'd be more in favor of it.

OnlyForNow said:

---

It's ridiculous that the churches are blackmailed into this anyways.

If by the giving of the church they have to devote that amount of money to outreach/missions/etc (not for use for the betterment of the church itself) but they got to choose the avenue for the expenditure of the money, I'd be more in favor of it.

---

Agreed. It is extortion, and many small town churches cannot afford it. Same thing happened in PCUSA. And because the small, less affluent churches cannot afford to leave, they die quickly because people aren't on board with the leftist theology of the denomination. The devil is truly running some of these denominations now.