The United Methodist church recently upheld its current position, which is that “homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching.” This was a part of a minority report that was adopted. The “majority report” (apparently not representing the majority of delegates) wanted to substitute the “incompatibility” language with “faithful, thoughtful people who have grappled with this issue deeply disagree with one another; yet all seek a faithful witness.” They also wanted to ask Methodists “to refrain from judgment regarding homosexual persons and practices as the Spirit leads us to a new insight” (emphasis mine). The delegates also voted to retain language preventing Methodist pastors from performing gay “marriages,” and rejected language suggesting “civil unions” were a human right. The UMC also affirmed the dignity of all persons, regardless of sexual orientation. As you can see from the photo above, not everybody was too happy with the current decisions.
So basically, Methodists have again rejected revisionist (and I use this not as a slur but for those who want to “revise” the discipline of the UMC) appeals for changes regarding appropriate Christian sexual morality. Of course, the progressives will not stop trying. They will continue to disobey the rules regarding sexuality, stressing “dialogue” and “living in tension,” and being “prophetic,” until that is, they “win the day,” and they can start literally enforcing the rules when conservatives break them! Maybe I am being cynical, but this is pretty much how it has happened in the Episcopal church, another mainline Protestant church dealing with sexuality.
However, the window to officially change the UMC in a more liberal direction may be closing. As is the case in most churches, the Methodist church is growing rapidly in conservative Africa, and declining in liberal conferences in the U.S. Apparently conservative conferences are growing in the U.S. Thus, the future of the UMC is likely going to be traditional, at least in terms of sexual morality. I grew up UMC, and have quite a few Methodist friends. In the West Ohio Conference, the bishop when I grew up was Judith Craig, who was extremely liberal, and from what I understand, was part of the Reimagining Conference (communion with milk and honey, prayers to Sophia, etc). However, the new bishop of the West Ohio Conference is known to be conservative, and many pastors from Asbury Theological Seminary (a conservative Methodist seminary in Kentucky) are in positions of power. Thus it seems like things are turning around for conservatives even in the U.S.
My dad is a UMC minister. I remember him telling me stories about UMC liberalism. The first ministry commission he went before refused to approve his ordination, because my dad insisted that belief in the bodily resurrection was non-negotiable. Oh, the heresy!! At any rate, it seems like the Methodists have stood firm. John Wesley would be proud.
UPDATE: Young progressives protest the conservative vote by initiating a 24-hour drumming circle next to the convention center, followed by a protest luncheon (no joke!). It’s my grad school all over again!
Image from www.umc.org
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
May 2, 2008 at 10:38 am
“Of course, the progressives will not stop trying. They will continue to disobey the rules regarding sexuality, stressing “dialogue” and “living in tension,” and being “prophetic,” until that is, they “win the day,” and they can start literally enforcing the rules when conservatives break them!”
I think this well sums it up. Attrition and playing “the waiting game” seems to be the MO of groups looking to re-define. The sad, sad looking faces of disappointment in the photo won’t be sad that long… In a few years they will have the votes to get their way.
May 2, 2008 at 11:44 am
I grew up UMC, and I’m actually kind of surprised to see this happening. I am glad though. Baby steps are better than no steps at all.
May 2, 2008 at 1:02 pm
This probably reflects a growing spirit of moderation in the United Methodist Church. I imagine that almost no one in the convention hall was willing to defend many of the policies, programs and practices towards gay people that were in place in –say, 1965, when, for example, being gay was grounds for expelling a student from United Methodist colleges and universities.
Conservatives are on strong ground if they want to defend by itself the “minority report” that was adopted. If they want to make the discussion part of a larger ‘culture war’ issue of where this might be heading, then it is entirely fair to link them to places we might still be if not for ‘revisionist’ movments.
May 2, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Katherine,
The Methodists clearly condemned homosexual practice, yet affirmed the dignity of gays and lesbians as persons. This is the Catholic position. I know some would say that to fully affirm a gay person’s dignity would be to allow them to marry, etc, but this would be inconsistent with magisterial teaching, and therefore committing sin is not in line with giving a person dignity (how the UMCs view this I don’t know, but if they can affirm a gay person’s dignity, but say same-sex sex is wrong, then they must agree to some extent). If the report said gays should be excluded from Methodist schools and other places purely on account of sexual orientation, I would take issue with that as a Catholic, as would many conservative Methodists.
May 2, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Simple Sinner,
Spot on . You cut-and-pasted what I would have.
The UMC, as others have noted, has hills and valleys with regards to Orthodoxy. It all depends on the Bishop du-jour as to which way it can go.
I might remind all that the UMC de-frocked, and then re-frocked an openly lesbian minister http://www.umaffirm.org/news/2005stroudappeal.html
IMHO, ultimatley, the UMC is a Protestant Denomination, and will succumb to two tracks (or both tracks at the same time). When groups within the denomination disagree on doctrine they will (a) change the doctrine, or (b) a split will occur where those who could not/would not get their way can have their way in a separate denomination. It’s only a matter of time, unfortunatley.
May 2, 2008 at 4:08 pm
PMG - I thank you for your affirmation.
With the possible exception of the SBC (which came rather close to going “pro-choice” in the early 70s) I have not seen a strong correction against relitavism in a mainline denom. The causes or possible “repeatability” of that sort of correction are worthy of discussion.
Folks calling for reassessment will in the end with the day. It can all be summed up in a word: entropy.
Inasmuch as these truths or teachings are heavily reliant on the support or consensus of the faithful… Well if that is how things were to work, Arianism would have carried the day, and the growing antipathy for any number of issues that are otherwise problematic - from abortifacients to remarriage slowly but surely gain acceptance.
There is a classic line in the film Chinatown - “Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough.” The same is true of heterodoxy. Leave it alone, let it linger, and allow for it to become a respectable enough idea in a debate that never quite gets closed (what magisterium closes it?) and in the end it will be OK, if not celebrated.
May 2, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Worth noting these resolutions are basically as binding on the faithful of this denomination as they are enforced… (cf. Out Of The Flames… « Per Christum). What is already a reality in some places, is just not yet acknowledged elsewhere. Honestly, nothing is going to change as a result of this vote. Where GLBT politics have held sway and “unity ceremonies” and “affirmation” were the norm yesterday, the same is true today and tomorrow.
Inasmuch as they will be well ignored in some areas, much of the debate gets reduced to the “how many angels on the head of a pin” sort of discource… Laws without teeth that are always open for debate… Well today’s laws are suggestions to some, and tomorrows quaint options.
May 2, 2008 at 5:33 pm
drumming circle… rotflmFao!!!! you sir, make me weep with laughter.
May 2, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Here’s a question: Do you think that the current trend in the Catholic Church towards orthodoxy led by the Holy Father is also having a pull on these other denominations?
May 2, 2008 at 9:04 pm
“Here’s a question: Do you think that the current trend in the Catholic Church towards orthodoxy led by the Holy Father is also having a pull on these other denominations?”
No.
It wasn’t as though JP2 was heterodox - he came down hard and unequivicably for the culture of life. It wasn’t exactly as if we saw a surge in pro-life activities…
B16’s unapologetic apologetic for the Catholic faith - Benedict contra mundum - is having a pull. A pull of people into the Faith.
May 2, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Here’s a question: Do you think that the current trend in the Catholic Church towards orthodoxy led by the Holy Father is also having a pull on these other denominations?
I would say, Yes.
The Pope is one of the few international Christian figures. It is hard to believe he, as a leader, would not have an effect on the Christian world.
As a church, our Popes have guided us in an unwavering belief structure since these debates hit the table. They have said No! to abortion, homosexual marriages, etc. Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae made many predictions regarding the course of society if abortion was allowed, predictions which are being realized. Yet, the Church has been labeled as medieval and archaic; an entity whose time is up. If this is true, why has the Church has not lost her pull? The so called progressive churches are beginning to realize why. The Church, because of its “archaic” hierarchy, provides its followers with a solid foundation. People of faith want a rock to stand on, not a sponge that soaks in everything around it only to grow soft over time.
Whatever one’s concept of a Catholic is, one must admit as a Church it has stood her ground on moral matters.
May 2, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Excuse my cynicism, but those frowns look orchestrated to me. Revisionists will stop at no manipulation, no ploy, no gimmick to cajole, shame, harass fellow Christians into acquiescing to their position. One has to be very very strong in the faith not to cave to their pressures.
May 2, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Perhaps they’re upset about being seen in those horrendously ugly stoles someone has obviously forced them to wear.
I would be upset.
May 2, 2008 at 10:44 pm
AMM. LOL.
Seriously, stoles? Do these folks even remember what a stole represents?
These denominational conventions demonstrate the real emptiness of Protestantism. Who exactly was it that decided it was a good idea that every manner of moral and theological teaching was up for a majority vote every few years? I wonder how the Trinity and homousion votes went.
Jesus as the Way, Truth and Life hasn’t fared too well in TEC recently, but I am not sure how those votes would go. I suspect they have been tabled as there are far more pressing matters than salvation up for decision.
May 2, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Also, have you noticed how many GLB folks seem to be in attendance. I suspect they are way over-represented (from 3%) in the denominational apparatus.
Can you say “pieces of flair?”
May 2, 2008 at 11:10 pm
I somewhat doubt the significance of the stole has a lot of resonance, but the fact is the ugly Guatemalan stole is a fixture of many mainline denoms.
http://www.cokesbury.com/forms/ProductDetail.aspx?pid=356210
Now, while I with you would be the first to point out the problems of Protestantism (whatever all that term encompasses); I do have to acknowledge they do some things well we Orthodox and Catholics do not. Additionally while I think we tend to pull some in through the front door from that side, I think a lot go out the back to them.
May 3, 2008 at 3:16 am
Jen, I don’t discount that the Pope has influence. I discount the idea that his influence has “pull” within non-Catholic circles… save to “pull” some non-Catholics into the Catholic Church a la the Brothers Bennet.
For the most part, Rome maintains a sort of central point on the map acting as a bit of a compass… But when Rome zigs, these guys zag. When Rome says up, they say down. The contradistinction would be breathtaking were it not so sad.
So as vocal as B16 is on traditional Catholic morality… Certainly it gives hope to any number of souls looking for succer and inspiration (I think we all could name a half dozen non-Catholic folks who are much admiring Rome!)… But these folks tend to be in the minority, and not in the corridors of power for these other institutions.
The TEC gets the most press, but the ELCA, the UMC, and the Church of Christ aren’t far behind. It would be far easier to turn a Great Lakes freighter around in the Maumee than wrest control of these denominations from leadership whose goals and directions are strongly set.
May 3, 2008 at 8:08 am
The UMC will be approving Gay Marriage in less than 5 years. They won’t stop until they have forced approval into the organization. Then you will have a split. You will have the United Methodist Church (which will allow gay marriage which is an oxymoron unless your using the term gay to mean happy remember when gay meant happy?) and then you will have the Orthodox Methodist Church. Same Protestant playbook different issue and different time.
May 3, 2008 at 11:32 am
This is the first post I’ve seen that has alluded to the possibility of stemming the gay rights tide in a Protestant denomination. This series of legislative loss by the gay movement in the UMC in itself is no guarantee of a definitive shift. That would require IMHO, some judicial actions which actually discourage new pro-gay membership and encourage some such current members to leave–that is what it takes to actually reverse a course. Perhaps the removal of some pro-gay clergy for preaching/teaching/writing in opposition to the UMC position along with some changes in seminary faculty would send the right signals. In short, any church that provides a platform for those who oppose its teaching is dooming itself to continuous conflict until its teachings are gutted.
Remember, the story of the camel’s nose ends with the Arab getting kicked out of the tent. This is happening in TEC. And it will happen in the UMC, if the traditionalists do not forcibly remove the activists from leadership.
May 3, 2008 at 11:38 am
what i find offensive is that they say that hmosexuality is incompatible with church teaching……………BUT THEY DONT SAY HOW IT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH CHURCH TEACHING.
is it incompatible because a certain number of people believe it is a sin. are we talking about teaching by consensus?
methodists are not encouraged to use their brains in understanding the gospel. rather they are encouraged to do it thru guilt, homophobia, inuendo, and accusation.
May 4, 2008 at 2:20 am
In the wake of Roe v. Wade - though this is NEVER talked about - the Southern Baptist Convention was preparing to issue a statement that recognized abortion as allowable. Contrary to the popular idea that Baptists turn people into conservative Republicans, it was the conservative Republicans that “saved the day” and turned Baptists into conservatives. It was vice versa.
The myth that persists is that “relitavism” has been slowly creeping into Protestantism (and some extent Orthodoxy)… In fact it has been there since the first days of the Reformation! None of the modern ecclesial communities rooted in the Reformation are without change in their thinking and theology remaining true to some ideal of their particular Reformer par excellance. The changes have been ongoing and fluid since the first days of the Rejection. Only now, it is far more obvious, as the changes are so radical.
In 1931 the world’s Anglican bishops meeting at Lambeth voted to allow contraception - a first in Christendom. Later that year, the American Birth Control league invited 30+ PECUSA bishops to a conference and even on the heals of the pro-ABC vote at Lambeth, absolutely NONE of them would go.
The UMC already has gay clergy that are out and proud, and already has parishes that affirm unity ceremonies in plenty of places. Give them about ten years, and the idealogues will have the votes needed to get the “official” blessing of the UMC. It is all up for a vote, and entropy being what it is, the “re-evaluators” will keep voting until they win.
May 5, 2008 at 9:36 am
“Katherine,
The Methodists clearly condemned homosexual practice, yet affirmed the dignity of gays and lesbians as persons. This is the Catholic position. …If the report said gays should be excluded from Methodist schools and other places purely on account of sexual orientation, I would take issue with that as a Catholic, as would many conservative Methodists.”
I’m sure you would as would many of today’s conservative Methodists. You do so because of the success of the previous generation of ‘revisionists’. Hence my point that a sense of moderation is in the air. From the ‘revisionist’ movement, some aspects have been found to be valid, true and just and some aspect not. Let’s not pretend otherwise.
May 5, 2008 at 10:11 am
Katherine I don’t see any pretending otherwise.
What I do see is a certain almost smug sense of the glory of relativism. A reduction of moral theology to a “wait and see” approach that leaves us in a position of choosing between the false dichotomy of everything we understand being set in stone down to the minutae or everything being up for grabs. Some of us are rather unsatisfied with either spectral extreme. The notion that all of these can go up for a vote is bothersome and odd to some of us.
May 5, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Dear SS,
Well, I think we are of one mind. I agree with your rejection of the false dichotomy. In many ways similar to my earlier statement of an emerging moderation — a rejection of two polarizing extremes. Revisionism and relativism are not the same. And while we should reject relativism, that does not mean we should embrace every revisioning. But at times we should be revisionists to the proper degree. The Methodists were good and wise not to suppress the first sprouts of revisionism on this issue and are also good and wise to put limits on it.
May 5, 2008 at 2:07 pm
John R. it is incompatible with the Bible which I hope the Methodist Church uses to base it’s teaching. Just Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, & 1 Timothy 1. Homosexuality is incompatible with natural law which God created and is against the commandment “You shall not commit adultery” Adultry would be sexual relations outside of marriage, and marriage by original definition requires that life could be created under normal circumstances and that can only be done by a man and a woman. Homosexuality is part of our fallen nature and the act is sinful. Anyone saying otherwise is leading you down a bad path.
May 5, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Fornication is sexual relations between unmarried persons. Adultery is sexual realtions by a married person with someone not his or her spouse.
May 5, 2008 at 6:24 pm
I am all in favor of Protestant “revisionism” when it comes to arriving back at the ancient Catholic teaching. Yes, the Methodists have decided against banning the same-sex attracted from their membership while still affirming that same sexual acts are incompatible with the gospel. In other words they found a back door to the ancient position of the Catholic Church that acts are sinful, not persons. In other words, simply being same sex attracted is not sinful. This is ancient Catholic moral theology 101.
Generally speaking, revisionism is the altering of the ancient faith/morality. I am glad the Methodists have come around. But, from a Catholic point of view, this is not a revision but a reversion.
May 5, 2008 at 6:42 pm
BTW, I spoke today with a boyhood friend I havent talked to in 12 years. In that time we have both been ordained, he a Methodist minister, and I a priest.
He was not too forthcoming on the particulars of his ecclesiastical politics–yet. But, he is the pastor of a decent sized church in Virginia without rainbow banners or references to “inclusion” beyond good Southern hospitality on its website. When I asked him about the votes in the General Conference he sighed that “ecclesiastical democracy is a fickle witch,” by which he gave nothing away (it was a bit like I imagine talking with Rowan Williams would be). While not revealing his own position, he was full of witty commentary on current denominational protestantism, the implication of which was that Rome has the better system.
He said he had a lot of ex-Romans in his congregation and that they often are the majority among his batches of new members. They are the bitterest of his new congregants, he says (which made me secretly smiled–we have suffered enough with these malcontents, now its his turn). But he, a fairly crypto Catholic himself, quiets them by reminding them that to criticize Catholicism is for a Methodist to publicly dishonor ones grandmother. Interesting. He might make a wonderful guest on Marcus Grodi some day.
May 6, 2008 at 9:41 am
Dear Fr. J,
I think we can equally embrace Catholic revisionism when it restores the Church to her principles of justice and love. The Methodist Church was hardly particularly harsh in its practices towards homosexuals.
May 6, 2008 at 10:18 am
In the area of teaching, the Catholic Church has never needed to be restored to justice and love–though some of her members need to be restored to justice and love for her.
May 6, 2008 at 10:19 am
Not true about the Methodists, who ran homosexuals out of their churches and other institutions.
May 6, 2008 at 10:21 am
Also, some Catholic need to be restored to their justice and love for the unborn and reject pro-choice candidates like Obama and Clinton, as a matter of moral duty.
May 6, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Fr. J,
Are you under the illusion that Catholics never ran homosexuals out of our insitutions like the Methodist did? It is your view that it was only African Americans who once suffered exclusion from some Catholic insitutions?
May 7, 2008 at 12:28 am
Katherine, I dont know what the present conversation has to do with african americans. Perhaps you are just being provocative.
If you are familiar with Catholic moral theology, you will know that it has always been act based exclusively. Membership in the Catholic Church has never been reserved to heterosexuals which by the way is a modern concept. Methodists, however, have excluded homosexuals from their membership over the past century. So, yes, we do have different histories and practices. The present Methodist teaching against acts but not against inclinations represents a return to the position the Catholic Church has always maintained. These are facts.
May 7, 2008 at 11:16 am
Being a Catholic, I very much believe the Catholic Church has a special charism of the Holy Spirit which protects her from error when defining truth and morals, based in part to our Lord’s promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.
Having said that, defining truth and morals is only a part of the mission she is called to do. That mission is carried out by human beings, with all of the failings that are the nature of human beings.
When my family first moved to Washington, DC, I was exposed to the practice of having some Catholics sit in the back of the Church and receive communion after others did. Those asked to sit in the back were also not allowed to send their children to the parish school they were not “canonical members of the parish” (the archdiocese, at that time, had an overlay with two sets of parish boundaries). I know you, Father, would agree with the conclusion I quickly came to at the time, which is that this system was not in keeping with our Catholic faith. I soon gathered with other liberal Catholics to see what could be done to change this arrangement. We met with Archbishop O’Boyle, who was very kind and supportive. He declined our request for any immediate action but asked us to be patient and to work with him for gradual change. While we had a few moments of tension with the Archbishop, and pursued some unilateral moves, we generally followed his counsel. I can’t attest that each and every one of us in this initiative were perfectly orthodox Catholics on every issue. I do realize that while the white parishes did not accept Blacks as members of the parish, the Church never denied that Blacks were not members of the Church Universal through baptism.
Through the efforts of liberal Catholics (and I have no option to use anything but that term because that is the only description that was applied to us at the time that I can post in a forum open to children), with aid of our faith the Christ the Lord, the Church on this matter was certainly ahead of secular society and, I believe, helped pave the way for the same reforms in the secular world.
With that as prelude, I have some memory as to the ways homosexuals were treated in, say, 1965 (just to pick a starting point). A known homosexual certainly could have been expelled from any church related (Catholic or Protestant) college or university. Violence and police indifference were not uncommon. Criminal sanctions against homosexuals existed with the support of the Archdiocese well into the 1980’s. Economic sanctions were common and legal (and still are today across the river in Virginia).
There was a movement to re-vision how society responds to homosexuals. The movement included radical and moderate elements. Its loose agenda included laudable and objectionable items. The movement included sinners and saints.
My only point here is that I am pleased of certain revision of Christian and social responses to homosexuals occurred on some items since 1965. Truth requires us to admit that this revisioning would not have occurred without a certain flawed social movement. We are in no way obligated to accept everything that movement has advocated and we are free to hold that it has now achieved all of its proper and legitimate goals and has no further usefulness. But we are not free to deny the Truth that on some matters, they may have had a keener insight to the teachings of Jesus Christ than most of the churchmen at the time.
May 9, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Katherine, you speak with absolutely no evidence. At Notre Dame there has never been a policy ever in 160+ years barring someone from attending the University on the basis of being a homosexual. I doubt the word was even spoken in polite conversation in 1965 here on campus or just about any Catholic setting. I think you are just making stuff up.
Now there is today and always has been a policy against sex. Any student at any time in Notre Dame history caught in a sexual act with another person is expelled period without regard to the sex of the other person. We do not have and never have had a policy prohibiting students from admission based on sexual orientation.
I am serious about this, Katherine. And I am going to say it as many times as I have to for you to understand it perfectly clearly. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned there is no teaching against homosexuality, only homosexual acts. Before the 1970’s the Catholic Church never even recognized (nor did most of society) that there was such a thing as homosexuality–a concept only originating in the 19th Century. So not only were there no policies barring homosexuals from entering the University–the very idea of sexual orientation was not employed in the era in which you are speaking.
In the Catholic setting the question of homosexual acts was never treated differently from other sexual sins. One goes to confession. That is it. Just as there is no identity tag for those who use prostitutes, there was no identity tag in Catholic thought for those who have same-sex sex.
Your method of projecting the situation of race (which was disgraceful) onto sexual orientation is not sound. Unless you can come up with specific cases, I will not accept the charges you are making.
May 13, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Fr, J,
Your own words betray you. Two chaste young men holding hands, kissing, dating at Notre Dame in 1965 would have got them expelled if they lived long enough for the university to get the paperwork done.
On the other hand, I know of a then divorced and civilly remarried man who was not barred from UND graduate school.
May 13, 2008 at 7:26 pm
“Two chaste young men holding hands and kissing, dating”
First, a heterosexual couple kissing romantically can remain chaste while doing so. A gay couple cannot. Romantic gestures between memebers of the same sex are always unchaste because they are disordered.
Second. In 1965? Didn’t happen. And, there was no policy to expell anyone for kissing. It would have been only a matter of confession. That is how it would have been handled because the church understood sexual/romantic acts between members of the same sex as discreet acts, not as a matter of identity. Such discreet acts were viewed as moral failures, and the temptation toward those acts as character flaws to be fought with the will aided by grace.
Simply stating that this was a matter for expulsion does not make it the case. It is not a parallel to race and was understood by Catholics and Protestants very differently.
Now whether such a hypothetical couple would have gotten beat up? In those times when street fights were common, quite possibly.
September 20, 2008 at 3:37 pm
pro product activ solution product activ solution pro