United Methodists' Gay Policy To Be Challenged

By Michael O'Malley
Religion News Service

CLEVELAND (RNS) Hundreds of United Methodists are meeting in Huron, Ohio, this week in an uphill bid to make their 12 million-member denomination more gay-friendly.

Activists are gearing up for next year's General Conference meeting in Tampa, Fla., where they plan to fight once again to change the church's official position that homosexual activity is a sin.

Unlike other mainline Protestant denominations in the United States that have moved to allow openly gay clergy and bless same-sex unions, United Methodists prohibit sexually active gay clergy and blessing same-sex unions.

"The practice of homosexuality is incompatible to Christian teaching," reads a section in the Methodists' Book of Discipline.

But the nearly 700 people expected to attend the four-day conference at Sawmill Creek Resort that opened Thursday (Aug. 25) are hoping the 2012 General Conference will be different than recent assemblies, where they saw repeated defeats.

"We might not get everything we want, but we'll get some of it," said the Rev. Troy Plummer of Chicago, an organizer of the Huron conference.

"I think something dramatic will happen in Tampa. The vote will be close, by just a handful of votes this time. We're about to make it happen."

Previous conference votes showed the movement prevailing in the United States but failing in Europe and Africa, said Plummer, noting that delegates from fast-growing overseas conferences tend to be more conservative.

"We have the votes in the U.S.," he said. "Now we're working to get the votes worldwide."

The Ohio meeting comes at the same time as some 2,000 evangelical Presbyterians gather in Minneapolis for a two-session on their future within the Presbyterian Church (USA), which now allows both gay clergy and same-sex unions.

United Methodists number about 8 million in the United States. The other 4 million are mostly in Europe, Africa and the Philippines.

The Rev. Ken Chalker, pastor of University Circle United Methodist Church in Cleveland, said a vote by Ohio Methodists to allow openly gay clergy would lose by a substantial margin.

"I don't know what tea leaves he's reading," said Chalker, referring to Plummer. "The rules on ordaining gays or blessing same-sex couples are not going to change in Tampa. It would be wonderful if there were changes. I certainly would support them."

But the Rev. Chet Harris, pastor of the Dueber United Methodist Church in Canton, would not. He believes homosexuality is a sin, on the same level as adultery and sex outside of marriage.

Harris said the push within the church for approval of same-sex relationships could be gaining ground and should be taken seriously.

"The movement is strong," he said. "These people are sharp. They wouldn't be doing this unless they thought they could pull off a coup."

Harris predicted that if the gay-friendly movement prevails, there would be a mass exodus of United Methodists, including himself.

"I will not serve in a church that will ordain homosexuals," he said. "I will not serve in a church that affirms their lifestyle. If this thing goes the distance -- and I think it has the potential -- it will splinter us like bamboo."

Michael O'Malley writes for The Plain Dealer in Cleveland.

Comments

[namaholston]

09:13 PM on 09/12/2011

The Methodist Church was at one time the largest church in the US, but is now losing membership each year in the millions because they are drifting from the WORD, as did the Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian in their adapting to civil laws instead of GOD's laws. Homosexuals will never populate the earth as the Essenes realized when they decided to take women into their sect, futhermore this distoyts GOD's most precious creation, man and women, made in HIS image, for the purpose of obeying HIM, HIS LAWS and to populate the earth.

[namaholston]

08:48 PM on 09/12/2011

Call me homophobe, call me bigot, call me anything you like, as you are probably in to the name-calling, liberal group, but call me first, a Christian, because that is what I am! I don't subscribe to name-calling, nor do I feel I am a bigot, but I am someone who genuinely believes there is validity and reason why the laws of GOD were given to mankind in the beginning. He told Abraham to go and populate the earth, then later gave the Commandments to Moses and while we think we are smarter than GOD and can rule the earth better. Look at what mankind has done without God, but just imagine what we could do with GOD, or better yet what GOD could do with us! The Bible has the answer to homosexuality, adultery, murder, and a host of other sins against GOD, and we will pay dearly if we don't adhere to his commandments.

[Toutlaguerre]

12:09 AM on 08/31/2011

I am so grateful that the issue of same-sex marriages is not open to debate in my faith. As Christians we do not ridicule homosexuals but treat them in a respectful and dignified manner. However we believe that the biblical standard is that God intended marriage to be a permanent and an intimate bond between a man and a woman, which excludes same-sex unions. The legality of the issue is not of particular concern as the laws of the land do not stand above biblical laws and principles.As such we do not engage in protests or any form of political campaigns in order to change such laws. It is a sad day when so called religious leaders stoop to these measures to try to get a change in what the bible clearly condemns. This same-sex marriage issue is clearly one that will separate the sheep from the goats. True christianity will never approve same sex marriages.

[Mark Van Kekerix]

01:46 PM on 09/06/2011

"True Christianity" the way you define it would also deny married people the option of divorce. In fact, there are far stronger statements against divorce in the Bible than there are about homosexuality; and there are NO statements in the Bible about same-sex marriage. I'll stop pushing for the Methodist Church to deal with homosexuality if you'll go along with the church refusing to recognize any divorces within its ranks. Let's see if that will fly...I'm guessing it won't!

[Toutlaguerre]

05:29 PM on 09/06/2011

Mark Van Kekerix, although God intended for marriage to be a permanent bond between a man and a woman there are grounds for divorce. It's stated plainly in Matthew 19:9, that grounds for divorcing would be fornication. So your pseudo argument is essentially as impotent as the push for true christianity to accept same sex marriages. I think you may be better off trying to gain state recognition of those unions, but from a spiritual perspective same-sex marriages will never be considered sacred.

[mggwa]

06:14 PM on 08/29/2011

I wish these churches would just make up their minds and then have it stay made up for a generation or two. God presumably doesn't change but these churches sure do.

[Atwill]

09:43 AM on 08/27/2011

It doesnt matter what any of these religious leaders think. no one cares. Gay marraige will be in all 50 states and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Marriage is not a religious institution. It has nothing to do with religion.

[mggwa]

06:08 PM on 08/29/2011

"It doesnt matter what any of these religious leaders think. no one cares."

The story is BY, and FOR, those who care.

[mggwa]

06:38 PM on 08/29/2011

"Marriage is not a religious institutio­n. It has nothing to do with religion. "

On the contrary...

"the marriage ceremony is regarded as a religious rite or includes religious features, although the religious element is not always regarded as necessary to the validity of the union." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm

"All mainstream religions have strong views relating to marriage. Most religions perform a wedding ceremony to solemnize the beginning of a marriage." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Marriage_and_religion

Prior to 1887 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act) marriage was pretty much ONLY a religious act.

Massachusetts challenge to DOMA rested upon a presumption that the state (as in 50 of them) define marriage, not the federal government. As such, marriage may mean something quite different in your state than mine.

[Atwill]

09:18 PM on 08/29/2011

Wrong. You get the license from the license office, the same place you get a fishing/ hunting license. Real religious.

[Yvetter]

05:54 PM on 09/01/2011

You would be wrong. Marriage ceremonies are personal depending on a couples religion, culture, upbringing, etc and not needed for a couple to be married. The church does not own marriage itself, nor does the church own the word marriage. They don't really have a right to define the meaning or force religious ceremonies on all.

[Norcal2]

11:40 AM on 08/26/2011

Interesting how gay relationships are only seen as something sexual....gay relationships are not just that.

They are relationships will all the trappings of a relationship...love, companionship, partnership disagreement and sex....all of it.

I hope the United Methodists move forward and recognize all of God's children as having a place at the table.

[mggwa]

06:09 PM on 08/29/2011

"Interestin­g how gay relationsh­ips are only seen as something sexual"

No sex in homosexual?

[Norcal2]

08:06 PM on 08/29/2011

If you read the post, it is included amongst other things...part of the entire package.

Are heterosexual relationships only about sex? Maybe some are indeed.

[mggwa]

06:40 PM on 08/29/2011

"
They are relationsh­ips will all the trappings of a relationsh­ip...love, companions­hip, partnershi­p disagreeme­nt and sex....all of it."

Take out the sex and you are describing my best friend. I just don't need to have sex with my best friend. In fact I don't seem to be able to contemplate it.

[John Denney]

12:31 PM on 09/05/2011

Well said, mggwa.

"Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart." - 1 Peter 1:22

The bond of brotherly love was well portrayed in Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" movie trilogy. Gandalf, Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gimli, Legolas, and Aragorn all developed a deep love for one another that was a joy to behold.

[Bill J4321]

08:26 PM on 08/25/2011

The practice of divorce, remarriage, and adultery are also 'incompatible to Christian teaching,' yet I do not see 'christian' churches persecuting heterosexuals or trying to keep them from God.

Religious heterosexuals can not keep gay poeple from God if they seek him. Religious heterosexuals do not 'own' God, or marriage, for that matter. If God exists, he is in all of us or none of us. (Spare me any bible verses to the contrary. The bible is a book written by men before pens were invented. You seem to have had no problems letting go of the biblical rules which affect your heterosexual activity and personal lives, so to qoute bible verses back to me will make you appear rather hallucinogenic.)

However, if in fact God does exist, I'll bet he's been wondering why his straight creations have been trying so hard to keep his gay creations so far removed from him. And if your 'judgment day' is true, I've no doubt he'll question each and everyone of you about it. I'll go further and suggest that he might even take it a bit more seriously than he will the genitalia of my beloved.

[mggwa]

06:10 PM on 08/29/2011

"yet I do not see 'christian­' churches persecutin­g heterosexu­als"

That would indeed be newsworthy!

[mggwa]

06:13 PM on 08/29/2011

"I'll bet he's been wondering why his straight creations have been trying so hard to keep his gay creations so far removed from him."

How much would you bet that any of this creations have the power to keep any of his other creations away from him? $10?

How exactly does one go to God? The usual way is to die. I'd like (love!) for someone to figure how to prevent it.

Perhaps you have confused the privileged of having 200 people accept a man as their priest despite living what until now has been a sinful life. That is quite a different thing than going to meet God.

[Bill J4321]

09:54 PM on 09/01/2011

you comment makes about as much sense as religion.

which is to say, none at all.