Anyway, some of them were commenting on another's post today. They realized that if they just separated from the global UMC (mainly, Africa), then they would be a majority in the church again. (I'll dispute that "again," but they would certainly be a majority of the leadership, which is what they care about.) My response to my friend was something along the lines of frogs and ponds; that is, if you shrink the pond enough you can always be the biggest frog in it. Or as Mohammed Ali Jinnah said to the British regarding the partition of India, "I do not care how little you give me, so long as you give it to me completely."
And how should I feel about that? Well, to quote William Tecumseh Sherman, when his counterpart feinted north to threaten his supply lines, "if he'll go to the Ohio, I'll give him rations." At this point, if the progs want their own denomination, they can have it, so long as they allow others to have their own, too. We are no longer voting to influence the decision to be made. Different groups have made different decisions, and they're not going to change. Furthermore, both sides insist upon acting upon their decisions. We are already effectively two (or more) denominations.
The traditionalists have already offered a gracious exit to anyone who wants one, so the ball is in the progressives' court. It all comes down to how much agony the Resistance is going to make us all go through before we reach the division. We could all be grown-ups and friends about this. Or we could fight about every last asset. If the Minority wants to be a Majority for those of like mind, they have it in their power to make that happen.
Go, with our blessing. And take as many bishops and bureaucrats as you can carry.