On Tue, 31 May 2011 23:36:42 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 5/31/2011 11:09 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
...

Yes, the congregation had *no* choice. She, and many in the congregation
showed them that, yes, they did have a choice.
...

Well, I'll make one last comment.

Under the UM Book of Discipline there is a church council every member
of the church is automatically a member of this council. Decisions on
changing a local church mission direction such as this are made by a
vote in such a council. So, there is a mechanism to have a say/make a
choice.

They gave them *no* choice. Something like half the congregation left and
they were having problems paying their bills afterward. Tough.

Now, often only a very small minority of the congregation members will
bother to show up and make their opinions known and cast their vote, but
that's no the same thing as having no choice.

Vote? There was no vote.

Whether that happened in this instance or not I have no way of knowing,
of course, but there is a process that gives local congregations quite a
lot of leeway; it isn't absolutely forced from the outside w/ no
recourse. OTOH, while I fail to understand why, it seems that many are
often more pleased to not participate but then complain when the
decision didn't go to their liking.

Pastor/Parish Committee can even recommend a replacement for a pastor
that is not in communion w/ the majority of the congregation or even
reject a new pastor appointment (albeit this is rare, it has and does
happen on occasion).

They had to pick from three or four pastors. One they interviewed one (and
had them as a guest pastor) they had to decide up or down on that pastor. They
could not come back to him/her later. The third was automatic. They didn't
choose which ones to interviews, either. *Very* poorly done.