What The United Methodist Church really teaches about gay marriage

[Hatikvah]

The United Methodist Church has been discussing gay marriage for quite a while now. Local conferences sometimes do reject the denomination’s official stance. The General Conference is always seemingly inconclusive on the issue of gay marriage. Contrary to the notions of some, The United Methodist Church has (or, is supposed to have) a set stance against gay marriage [source]:

The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church. (304.3, 2012 Book of Discipline Statements)

Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches. (341.6, 2012 Book of Discipline Statements)

According to the same source, “no board, agency, committee, commission, or council shall give United Methodist funds to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality.”

In fact, any United Methodist clergy can be charged (there aren’t any canon lawyers, but there is something) with “not being celibate in singleness or not faithful in a heterosexual marriage.” [source]

Now, before anyone sees this as automatically “intolerant” or “non-progressive,” The United Methodist Church takes a position on inclusiveness and equal rights regardless of any factors (including gender and sexual orientation):

Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for all persons, regardless of sexual orientation.

The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth. All persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, upon baptism be admitted as baptized members, and upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members in any local church in the connection. (4. Article IV.)

The denomination also says that it is opposed to homophobia and heterosexism (source from their website). Discuss or comment on this, and I hope this helps if anyone was confused.

 

[jmcrae]

That’s good to know!

It’s difficult and frustrating when people fail to follow the religion they profess - it makes everyone else look bad.

God bless you.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I believe they are pro-life too. Can anyone confirm or deny that?

 

[commenter]

I believe they are pro-life too. Can anyone confirm or deny that?

They are not “for” abortion in the sense they think it is harmless, and they are not “for” gay marriage.
A better way to consider their positions:

Some churches regard abortion and gay marriage as actions that have potential moral consequences, require a lot of concern and discernment, and encourage alternatives. They counsel love for the persons involved, no matter the decision. But if the people involved want to go through with it, **the church does not encourage members to oppose legalization. **

Other churches regard abortion and gay marriage as actions that have potential moral consequences, require a lot of concern and discernment, and encourage alternatives. They counsel love for the persons involved, no matter the decision. **They encourage members to oppose legalization. **

The Catholic Church, and others, would be in the second group. The United Methodist Church and others would be in the first group.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

You can see what a church believes in a collectively, look at their actions. The Episcopal Church “officially” held to scripture throughout their meltdown. The Anglican Communion still does.

If the organization allows people or branches to officially oppose / act against the teaching and remain within the organization, it means the organization believes the same as those acting counter to it’s teaching.

Sad, but true.

Pax

 

[Hatikvah]

I believe they are pro-life too. Can anyone confirm or deny that?

Well, The United Methodist Church, like John Wesley, has concerns about social justice. Gender-selective abortion is denounced by the UMC. They “affirm the principle of responsible parenthood. The family, in its varying forms, constitutes the primary focus of love, acceptance, and nurture, bringing fulfillment to parents and child.” I will note that the denomination does affirm the right to safe contraceptives, so the position is not like the Catholic one.

The UMC was part of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (a pro-choice group) before the May 2016 General Conference, where the denomination withdrew from it, so that indicates a pro-life motion. In cases where the health of the mother or child is in danger, “we believe the path of mature Christian judgment may indicate the advisability of abortion.”

The most telltale statement is this:

When an unacceptable pregnancy occurs, we believe that a profound regard for unborn human life must be weighed alongside an equally profound regard for fully developed personhood, particularly when the physical, mental, and emotional health of the pregnant woman and her family show reason to be seriously threatened by the new life just forming.

We reject the simplistic answers to the problem of abortion that, on the one hand, regard all abortions as murders, or, on the other hand, regard abortions as medical procedures without moral significance. [source]

Of course, as with many denominations today (even the Catholic Church), there are some members or groups (e.g., Catholics for Choice, which was excommunicated) trying to introduce more pro-whatever stances. Hillary Clinton is a United Methodist, for example. However, as I’ve said, the decision of the 2016 General Conference may, hopefully, be pointing more towards a pro-life stance in the future.

 

[Memaw]

Well, The United Methodist Church, like John Wesley, has concerns about social justice. Gender-selective abortion is denounced by the UMC. They “affirm the principle of responsible parenthood. The family, in its varying forms, constitutes the primary focus of love, acceptance, and nurture, bringing fulfillment to parents and child.” I will note that the denomination does affirm the right to safe contraceptives, so the position is not like the Catholic one.

The UMC was part of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (a pro-choice group) before the May 2016 General Conference, where the denomination withdrew from it, so that indicates a pro-life motion. In cases where the health of the mother or child is in danger, “we believe the path of mature Christian judgment may indicate the advisability of abortion.”

The most telltale statement is this:

Of course, as with many denominations today (even the Catholic Church), there are some members or groups (e.g., Catholics for Choice, which was excommunicated) trying to introduce more pro-whatever stances. Hillary Clinton is a United Methodist, for example. However, as I’ve said, the decision of the 2016 General Conference may, hopefully, be pointing more towards a pro-life stance in the future.

Catholics for Choice, is NOT a Catholic organization! The Church has NOTHING to do with it and they shouldn’t even be using the name Catholic. There is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, any one else that is not in truth with it is NOT a part of it. God Bless, Memaw

 

[commenter]

Well, The United Methodist Church, like John Wesley, has concerns about social justice. Gender-selective abortion is denounced by the UMC.

The UMC was part of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (a pro-choice group) before the May 2016 General Conference, where the denomination withdrew from it, so that indicates a pro-life motion. In cases where the health of the mother or child is in danger, “we believe the path of mature Christian judgment may indicate the advisability of abortion.”

Of course, as with many denominations today (even the Catholic Church), there are some members or groups (e.g., Catholics for Choice, which was excommunicated)
trying to introduce more pro-whatever stances. Hillary Clinton is a United Methodist, for example. However, as I’ve said, the decision of the 2016 General Conference may, hopefully, be pointing more towards a pro-life stance in the future.

“Catholics for Choice” never had anything to do with the Catholic Church. Their start up funding came from liberal Protestants - essentially it is a Protestant organization. Their “denunciation” of gender selective abortion is based, not on the sacredness of human life, but on concerns about sexism. In any event they do not support any action to make gender-selective abortion illegal.

Since legal abortion is the current status quo, and the UMC urges no action to change it, the UMC essentially supports pro choice.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I believe they are pro-life too. Can anyone confirm or deny that?

My neighbors are Methodist and they are pro choice under certain circumstances.

 

[ltwin]

The United Methodist Church has been discussing gay marriage for quite a while now. Local conferences sometimes do reject the denomination’s official stance. The General Conference is always seemingly inconclusive on the issue of gay marriage. Contrary to the notions of some, The United Methodist Church has (or, is supposed to have) a set stance against gay marriage [source]:

The problem with the United Methodist Church is not what they officially teach. There are wonderful and scripturally grounded teachings in the Book of Discipline.

The problem is that a large and influential segment (perhaps not a majority but powerful nonetheless) within the UMC clergy and denominational bureaucracies do not believe in the doctrines contained within the Book of Discipline.

Liberals have up until this point failed to change the Book of Discipline through voting in General Conference. If they had integrity, they would either continue trying to change church laws while still obeying them or they would leave and start their own liberal Methodist denominations.

Yet, that’s not what many have chosen to do. Now, they have turned to publicly undermining and disobeying UMC church law–such as marrying gay couples or electing openly homosexual bishops.

And why shouldn’t they? The clergy and church bureaucrats who essentially agree with them are unwilling to seriously and meaningfully enforce church law and ecclesiastical discipline. The most they’ve gotten up to this point have been akin to slaps on the wrists.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The problem with the United Methodist Church is not what they officially teach. There are wonderful and scripturally grounded teachings in the Book of Discipline.

**The problem is that a large and influential segment (perhaps not a majority but powerful nonetheless) within the UMC clergy and denominational bureaucracies do not believe in the doctrines contained within the Book of Discipline. **

Liberals have up until this point failed to change the Book of Discipline through voting in General Conference. If they had integrity, they would either continue trying to change church laws while still obeying them or they would leave and start their own liberal Methodist denominations.

Yet, that’s not what many have chosen to do. Now, they have turned to publicly undermining and disobeying UMC church law–such as marrying gay couples or electing openly homosexual bishops.

And why shouldn’t they? The clergy and church bureaucrats who essentially agree with them are unwilling to seriously and meaningfully enforce church law and ecclesiastical discipline. The most they’ve gotten up to this point have been akin to slaps on the wrists.

Bingo, and their liberal-leaning parishoners are a reflection of their leadership. Someone explain official UMC teaching on gay marriage to Hillary Clinton at the next debate. Love to see her reaction as i bet she has no idea what her Church teaches because on the surface they appear to be very gay friendly. With her Catholic running mate, Kaine, he knows very well Catholic teaching he just thinks he is above it.

 

[Peter_J]

The United Methodist Church has been discussing gay marriage for quite a while now. Local conferences sometimes do reject the denomination’s official stance. The General Conference is always seemingly inconclusive on the issue of gay marriage. Contrary to the notions of some, The United Methodist Church has (or, is supposed to have) a set stance against gay marriage [source]:

According to the same source, “no board, agency, committee, commission, or council shall give United Methodist funds to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality.”

Is the UMC also willing to take a stand against divorce/remarriage?

 

[ltwin]

Is the UMC also willing to take a stand against divorce/remarriage?

There is not an official penalty for being divorced and remarried. Depending on what annual conference you are in, it may effect your eligibility to be a minister though.

From the UMC’s “Social Principles”: “Divorce does not preclude a new marriage.”

 

[Peter_J]

There is not an official penalty for being divorced and remarried.

What about the “no-fault divorce” mentality that’s now common in our society?

 

[Contarini]

You can see what a church believes in a collectively, look at their actions. The Episcopal Church “officially” held to scripture throughout their meltdown. The Anglican Communion still does.

If the organization allows people or branches to officially oppose / act against the teaching and remain within the organization, it means the organization believes the same as those acting counter to it’s teaching.

Sad, but true.

Pax

Nope. That’s just a propagandistic claim by people who want stricter discipline. It doesn’t follow logically at all.

It does follow that the organization believes that the people acting counter to its teaching are not so far out of line as to be no longer genuinely members.

Tolerance is not the same thing as approval. I can say, “I disagree with you and will try to persuade you otherwise, but you are still my brother in Christ.” Or I can say, “Your error is so horrible that I can’t consider you to be my brother in Christ, because you have denied anything that can meaningfully be called Christianity.”

A denial of this distinction is the essence of fundamentalism/rigorism/integralism. And the next step is to say, “people who fail to condemn what I condemn as harshly as I condemn it aren’t part of the community either.”

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

It does follow that the organization believes that the people acting counter to its teaching are not so far out of line as to be no longer genuinely members.

Well sure. That’s pretty much my response to Protestants who think they can disprove the Catholic Church by pointing to dissenting Catholics.

 

[commenter]

It does follow that the organization believes that the people acting counter to its teaching are not so far out of line as to be no longer genuinely members.

Tolerance is not the same thing as approval. I can say, “I disagree with you and will try to persuade you otherwise, but you are still my brother in Christ.” Or I can say, “Your error is so horrible that I can’t consider you to be my brother in Christ, because you have denied anything that can meaningfully be called Christianity.”

A denial of this distinction is the essence of fundamentalism/rigorism/integralism. And the next step is to say, “people who fail to condemn what I condemn as harshly as I condemn it aren’t part of the community either.”

Edwin

The church is often compared to a health center, where ALL are sinners. We love, not condemn, those who smoke and drink. Lots of nurses are unable to quit smoking, don’t condemn them. But what if the school nurse told the middle school students that it isn’t clear if smoking is bad for you, that they should be open minded about it. At the same time she is “harshly” criticizing trans fats, bad posture, etc, demanding students take action.

The UMC is highly dogmatic in terms of demanding members take action on social justice type issues. They condemn this or that, urging members to bring Christian principles into the political arena. For ****this **** denomination to foster ambiguity on same sex marriage and abortion would put them into the “pro choice” camp. They support the status quo.

 

[Wannano]

Well sure. That’s pretty much my response to Protestants who think they can disprove the Catholic Church by pointing to dissenting Catholics.

I think your response is a valid one. Also we should not try to disprove a church by observing the hypocrites active in that church.

At the same time I think your response is valid I reverse. I have noticed that a high percentage of active Catholic posters here at caf are former Protestants. Also true of many high profile Catholic apologists. I am afraid the tendency is for Catholics to disprove anything Protestant by pointing to dissented and elevated Protestants.

 

[Peter_J]

I think your response is a valid one. Also we should not try to disprove a church by observing the hypocrites active in that church.

At the same time I think your response is valid I reverse. I have noticed that a high percentage of active Catholic posters here at caf are former Protestants. Also true of many high profile Catholic apologists. I am afraid the tendency is for Catholics to disprove anything Protestant by pointing to dissented and elevated Protestants.

Thank you for posting that. I would just like to add: I try not to base my ideas about Catholics on what I find on a website. (Well, vatican.va, but only in the sense that what I find there is a library of Vatican documents.)

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I think your response is a valid one. Also we should not try to disprove a church by observing the hypocrites active in that church.

At the same time I think your response is valid I reverse. I have noticed that a high percentage of active Catholic posters here at caf are former Protestants. Also true of many high profile Catholic apologists. I am afraid the tendency is for Catholics to disprove anything Protestant by pointing to dissented and elevated Protestants.

The division within protestantism is a ugly, horrible stain on Christendom. When I criticize it I do it with sadness in my heart. I hated the division then and still hate it now.