Thanks for the reply. Thank you for your work and service to others, it has had a dramatic impact on many congregations, ours included. Thank you for speaking out and inviting others into the conversation. Like iron against iron, it has thus far sharpened me, and I trust the same for you my friend. The General Board may have approved, but not the General Conference of the Church, and not this particular member [and employee] of the United Methodist church. You have hit upon something that is very disheartening, much of the church is in decline [see Quitting Church by Julia Duin]. You are also are spot on, Pharisees still exist today, like chaff among wheat. However Jesus taught his early disciples not pull out the chaff and destroy the good stuff. [obvious loose paraphrase] By the way, my last comments were somewhat tongue and cheek, sorry, I may have over played my hand. Blessings and Peace.

Nancy Pelosi misspeak? It has been known to happen. :)
Good thoughts David. I appreciate Tim's boldness in voicing his thoughts.

Thanks for inviting people into the discussion Tim. However some of your statements do not track with information found on the UMC.org site. Quoting from the site:
- The majority of United Methodist lawmakers in the House voted against the plan.
- The United Methodist Church’s Social Principles that declares health care is a “basic human right,”
- While it has historically supported access to health care for all, the denomination’s top lawmaking assembly did not act on the specific legislation.
- Of United Methodist Church members who are in the 111th Congress, 26 voted no; 18 voted yes.

You infer in your blog that the UM Church somehow supported HR3972 or as you put it: “using its collective strength to influence the government to establish a hand-out system rather than calling on the church to be the church and meet those needs.” I see no such evidence other than some individual United Methodist members who supported the legislation, which is their right. But, there was no formal support of this bill from the denomination.

I too am a Methodist, and love it roots. In my few years in the UM Church, I have yet to meet the person you speak of, the person who follows Methodism before Christ. I have yet to find anything in "Methodism" that prohibits me from following Christ or making disciples for Him. I am committed to the Church's mission, which as you know is "to make disciples for Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world." I have found the UM church's political positions to be written with much grace and with room for personal belief & opinion.

You say in your post that we have given the world many reasons not to become Methodists. Who is this WE you speak of? The United Methodist Church you & I belong to or possibly some phantom church that doesn't exist? I am mostly confused by the tone of your post, because you are a part of the United Methodist church and you work for one of its local congregations. Yet your comments would seem to telegraph that you really do not want to be a part of or tainted by those 'methodists'. My confusion could be best described in this scenario: If person worked for Ford, and they told everyone to be wary of Fords and to seriously consider some other form of transportation, why would that person continue working for Ford, and why would Ford Motor keep me on as a trusted staff person?

Like yourself, I too work for a United Methodist church, but my gut tells me that if I made some of your comments on my blog, I would not only be looking for some free health care, I would also be looking for a job.