The United Methodist Church—the largest mainline Protestant denomination in the U.S. and the third largest U.S. denomination overall—ends its quadrennial general convention in Portland, Ore., later this week. As the Washington Post reports:
The focus has been on whether to change or keep the denomination’s rejection of homosexuality. But a broader question is up for a vote: What do the 13 million Methodists from Africa to Asia to America have in common? …
Delegates from dozens of countries will consider the possibility of full inclusion of LGBT people, the “agree to disagree” option, whether gay people can be ordained, the question of officiating at same-sex weddings, whether such weddings can be held in Methodist churches and whether the current Book of Discipline wording should remain.
Roughly half of the denomination’s members are from the U.S., and while it appears a majority of North American conference delegates support LGBT inclusion, 30% of the delegates come from Africa, “where Methodists tend to be much more conservative on issues of homosexuality,” the Post reports.
Of the three options (1) maintain the anti-LGBT prohibitions, (2) embrace LGBT inclusion, and (3) let difference countries/regions adopt their own policies, the last may be the best that can be hoped for, and indeed the right solution for a church so at odds with itself. But there’s a strong likelihood that the anti-gay contingents, with some support from conservative U.S. Methodists, will keep the prohibitions in place. We’ll see.
The conference is also dealing with four measures proposing the church divest its investments from Israeli companies, and last January the church’s pension fund removed five Israeli banks from its portfolio. If the conference maintains its anti-gay policies and extends its anti-Israeli policies, then U.S. members should seriously consider whether affiliating with a global church that shuns the light and embraces bigotry is where they wish to celebrate the Lord.
Update. They punted, voting to delay all consideration of gay-related proposals via a commission that will spend at least two years reviewing policy on the subject:
But global membership is moving in the conservative direction, and during the Conference the progressives were watching their many proposed measures advancing equality get voted down in subcommittees, while conservatives’ efforts to strengthen the rules were advancing. …
Yet several conservative United Methodists from Africa spoke Wednesday from the floor, demanding their chance to vote on measures aimed at shoring up the ban on gay life. Conservatives in the church have been pushing for trials and other punishment for United Methodist pastors who come out or who officiate at same-sex weddings.
And this:
The vote Wednesday night in Portland, Ore., came one day after news leaked that bishops and various leaders were meeting over a plan to separate.
I wish the U.S. church had voted to leave.
More. On a positive note, the anti-Israeli propositions also lost. I should have clarified that the anti-Israeli push came predominantly from U.S. progressives, who also were among those supporting the gay-inclusive resolutions—the same conundrum we see with the Presbyterians and other denominations where the progressive left is at odds with the conservative right, and fie on both.
14 Comments for “The Methodists’ Time for Choosing”
posted by Houndentenor on
Stephen’s suggestion that Methodists should leave their church because it doesn’t support homosexuality while remaining a Republican is the very definition of cognitive dissonance. I agree about Methodists, although local congregations are often quite accepting, whatever the international body may approve or disapprove. Meanwhile the GOP is doubling down on it’s anti-gay positions. See the new Texas GOP party platform.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I suspect that the United Methodist Church will try to keep the denomination together by giving both main factions something.
posted by Houndentenor on
That or burying it under procedural bureaucracy until the next conference.
posted by Jon on
Well, once again, everyone is piling on Stephen, which makes this a most remarkable website. Having been active as a clergyperson in the UMC for around 20 years, I can’t fault Stephen on his comments on the situation. I think it’s right (Methodists’, by the way), but I believe that none of the options outlined are going to happen. It’s very simple: welcoming and affirming (two different things in the UMC) are going to split the church. It’s going to be messy what with clergypersons not called to churches, but sent by the Bishop, credentialed by the Conferences (ran by a bishop), and the churches under the “trust clause” which means each congregation’s property is held in trust for the Annual Conference. The members own nothing. This agony is going to continue for quite a little while, but the longer they wait to split, the harder it is going to be.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I gather you are Methodist, Stephen, or else you wouldn’t presume to admonish individual Methodists about leaving their denomination. The struggles Methodists are going through right now are echoed by similar struggles in most other mainstream denominations.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, but Methodists are lagging behind the other mainline protestant denominations to the frustration of more liberal elements in the church.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Yes, but Methodists are lagging behind the other mainline protestant denominations to the frustration of more liberal elements in the church.
That may be, but as I see things the internal doctrines and actions of a particular denomination is something that is best left to the members of that denomination, with as little interference as possible from outsiders.
I may be oversensitive in this respect, I suppose, but I have had more than a little experience with the ill effects of outsiders meddling in the internal concerns of my own faith community.
Religious doctrine and teaching is not governed by democratic principles, or by majority rule. The churches grappling with LGBT issues are engaged in a discernment process that will most likely take considerable time, and it seems to me that we should all give them time and space, without external comment or criticism.
The Methodist denomination, unlike the Catholic Church, the LDS and the Southern Baptist Convention and numerous other Christian communities, has not tried to impose their religious doctrine and teaching concerning hoimosexuality on the rest of us. We should return the favor.
posted by Lori Heine on
Excellent advice. Politics and faith should be kept as distinct from one another as possible.
I left the UCC because they kept ramming politics down everybody’s throat. Because their stance was the hard-line opposite of that taken by the RCC, the LDS or the Southern Baptists, they automatically assumed that all their members would be okay with it. That’s an ignorant assumption, to say the least.
The Episcopal Church, by and large, avoids doing that. For me, that’s a welcome relief.
posted by Houndentenor on
I agree that non-members have no say. I do have an interest as I sometimes work at Methodist churches, but I don’t have a vote in this matter. I didn’t mean to imply that I or any other outsiders did. That doesn’t mean we can’t be interested in what happens.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I didn’t mean to imply that I or any other outsiders did. That doesn’t mean we can’t be interested in what happens.
You didn’t. My problem in that regard is with Stephen, who if not a Methodist is a meddler:
I hope that Stephen is a Methodist. Otherwise his comment is way out of line.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. I did some digging. The United Methodist faced a similar controversy in the 1990s. I think they came out against the ban on gays in military, but kept the internal rules against gay clergy and same sex marriage.
It is an internal matter that lot of Christian denominations have had to deal with. Much like the rule of women in a church.
Now, the effort to boycott Israel has little to do with LGBT rights. It is trying to deal with the rights of Palestinian and the larger issue of a two state solution.
The situation for LGBT people in Israel is good, because liberal and progressive minded folk worked to change laws and opinions.
The main political right was not too helpful, and only got helpful after it was clear that the liberal view LGBT rights was popular with voters and the judges.
I think that the boycott is a mistake. Frankly, I’d rather see the money going help the peace political movement and helping combat prejudice and intolerance of all kinds.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The conference is also dealing with …
… a lot of issues, apparently.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Methodists appear to have created a commission on LGBT issues, looking forward to the next General Conference in 2020.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I wish the U.S. church had voted to leave.
Well, then advocate for that within your denomination, Stephen.