I published a piece two days ago on a Q&A document that was published on the Dakotas Annual Conference website, associated with a webinar they did. The way I reported it, someone on the conference staff with permissions to edit the document had actually offered some honest assessments rather than the party line. It was refreshing and fun to read, and I did a good deal of analysis and commentary on the issues at hand.
It definitely struck me as prankish. Sure, someone crossed a line. Humor is often the best commentary on the ridiculousness of a situation. Moral dissonance by the church should be mocked.
It’s pretty sad when the truth is condemned as disinformation because it doesn’t support the narrative they’re trying to push. The leadership of the UMC seems hell bent to follow the other mainline denominations to obsolescence.
I was a bit skeptical that someone from UMC leadership could be truthful and honest and go "against the party line" by posting the article you covered. We need to be discerning about anything on the internet especially when it is not in line with past postings. If it doesn't seem to conform to the "party line" then it likely didn't come from them. As you stated, they cannot have it both ways, either their documents are secure and someone couldn't possibly co opt the document or it wasn't secure and someone did co opt it. At any rate, they have only themselves to blame.
Yeah, this was a case of them being lax, not that there is any real need for major security. It was funny but I don't think there was any real harm. If they're embarrassed, it's because of their treatment of people rather than their security protocol.
Yes, he says to do this as a testimony against them, so that on the day of judgment, it will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. I haven't consigned them to death and destruction yet. Perhaps that is a rebellious heart. I just continue to care about them. I guess you can fault me for that if you like.
If you really care about the relationship then, yes, keep the dialog open, if not the best thing for me has been to follow that scripture. I, like countless others, have been unfairly and personally attacked for some belief or opinion, often times the disagreement wasn't even that great. At a certain point, I just had to conclude I wasn't going to get through to them and the relationship wasn't important enough to me anyway. I found If my real motivation is to "win" the argument then it's about me and my pride, not about helping them.
It definitely struck me as prankish. Sure, someone crossed a line. Humor is often the best commentary on the ridiculousness of a situation. Moral dissonance by the church should be mocked.
It’s pretty sad when the truth is condemned as disinformation because it doesn’t support the narrative they’re trying to push. The leadership of the UMC seems hell bent to follow the other mainline denominations to obsolescence.
I was a bit skeptical that someone from UMC leadership could be truthful and honest and go "against the party line" by posting the article you covered. We need to be discerning about anything on the internet especially when it is not in line with past postings. If it doesn't seem to conform to the "party line" then it likely didn't come from them. As you stated, they cannot have it both ways, either their documents are secure and someone couldn't possibly co opt the document or it wasn't secure and someone did co opt it. At any rate, they have only themselves to blame.
Yeah, this was a case of them being lax, not that there is any real need for major security. It was funny but I don't think there was any real harm. If they're embarrassed, it's because of their treatment of people rather than their security protocol.
Why can't people just move on. I thing a lot of people need to reread Matthew 10:14 and really think about it.
"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet."
Yes, he says to do this as a testimony against them, so that on the day of judgment, it will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. I haven't consigned them to death and destruction yet. Perhaps that is a rebellious heart. I just continue to care about them. I guess you can fault me for that if you like.
If you really care about the relationship then, yes, keep the dialog open, if not the best thing for me has been to follow that scripture. I, like countless others, have been unfairly and personally attacked for some belief or opinion, often times the disagreement wasn't even that great. At a certain point, I just had to conclude I wasn't going to get through to them and the relationship wasn't important enough to me anyway. I found If my real motivation is to "win" the argument then it's about me and my pride, not about helping them.