Since the California Supreme Court ruling in May, granting same sex marriages legality, a few United Methodist Bishops and District Superintendents have defied church law by allowing pastors to perform same sex marriages. These United Methodist's actions strike a strident note on several levels. First of all same sex marriages break with the social principles of church discipline and thus, throw the denomination into a violent schism. Those who go against the discipline break faith with the majority who authored the principles in the first place. Their rebellion drives us further away from the very unifying kinds of dialogues the liberal clergy seek.
Second, the blatant actions of clergy who support same sex marriages indicates a break with Orthodoxy in the UMC which traditionally salutes the Bible as the final authority on all matters of faith and living. It renders the very truth we seek to transform culture impotent and instead, capitulates to a relativistic political speak, allowing the world to shape our faith instead of vise versa. Jesus' exhortation to his disciples to be in the world, while refusing to embrace its systems now gets reversed. Theologically this inversion poisons the very roots of our once great denomination, scattering it to the four winds and rendering it ineffective as a witness for the gospel. This sort of civil war within the UMC cannot help us win friends and influence people. Instead our denomination will continue to decline, lose money, and become an example of the sad fate other like-minded groups face. Throughout history, God raises up a remnant of the faithful who morph into a transforming movement. We continue to see this ancient pattern taking place today as we decline and non-denominational churches flood the landscape, all the while UMC's seemed puzzled at this phenomenon. James V. Heidinger II of the Methodist reform group known as Good News further elaborates on our problem pleading that we steer clear of the kinds of destructive divisions other mainline denominations currently face. I post the entire article here because of its righteous and compelling nature:
Emboldened by the recent California State Supreme Court ruling of May 15, many California United Methodists and others have chosen once again to defy church teaching about homosexual behavior and same-sex marriages. Recent local and national news stories have reported that:
The California-Pacific Annual Conference meeting in June approved three measures that support same-gender couples entering into the marriage covenant.
The California-Nevada Annual Conference (northern California) meeting the same week approved two measures in support of same-gender marriage, one of which listed 67 retired United Methodist clergy in the conference who have offered to conduct same-gender ceremonies. United Methodist Church law says that “ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.” In response to a question of law, Bishop Beverly Shamana, outgoing bishop of the Cal-Nevada Conference, ruled that the resolution “steps over a disciplinary line” and she declared the statement “void and of no effect.” Nevertheless, the conference is on record publicly in support of same-gender marriage.
The Rev. Don Fado, a retired pastor in Sacramento and organizer of retired clergy willing to perform same-sex marriages, proudly reports the number has grown to 82. “Nothing has changed by the bishop calling the resolution null and void,” said Fado. The plans by retired clergy to perform same sex unions are in clear defiance of church law.
According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, the Rev. Eileen Lindsay of Walnut Creek United Methodist Church, recently solemnized three homosexual marriages and signed the wedding licenses. She blessed the couples in the church sanctuary and then the next day married the couples, “conducting the ceremonies in her backyard garden,” according to the WSJ.
In a Los Angeles Times article, the Rev. Janet Gollery McKeithen of Santa Monica’s Church in Ocean Park, indicated she plans to conduct weddings for two gay couples in August and September. “I love my church, and I don’t want to leave it. But I can’t be part of a church that is willing to portray a God that is so hateful. I would rather be forced out.”
At the UM Western Jurisdiction meeting in Portland, delegates from the Western states, Guam and other U.S. territories in the Pacific, heard episcopal candidate, the Rev. Frank Wulf, say “The problem is that I come as a gay man. . .And I know that the church says. . .a practicing self-avowed homosexual shall not be ordained or appointed within our church.” He admitted that were he to be elected, “all hell would break loose.” While Wulf was not elected a bishop, the Jurisdictional delegates went on record approving four statements challenging the denomination’s position on homosexuality.
At the Northeastern Jurisdictional Conference meeting in Harrisburg, PA, delegates voted July 17 to support the retired Cal-Nevada clergy who have said they will perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.
The actions cited above, which have appeared in news reports all across the United States, are schismatic in nature and will lead to a further unraveling of the tattered unity of the denomination. This is deeply troubling for United Methodism. The actions—by individual clergy, two annual conferences, and the Western and Northeastern Jurisdictions—represent a breach of covenant with the rest of the denomination.
These disturbing actions come from United Methodists who have deliberately chosen to turn their backs on their fellow United Methodists in the United States, Africa, Asia, and Europe. United Methodists are growing increasingly frustrated by such defiance. They will read about these actions and wonder, once again, why the church even bothers to seek the wisdom of God through holy conferencing at the corporate level of general conference. They are disillusioned to see both clergy and laity ignoring the standards that have been set prayerfully and by due process.
Our carefully-developed United Methodist sexuality standards are the result of 35 years of prayerful conferencing. They are not the standards for just our 11.5 million United Methodists here and overseas. They are standards which have been a part of Christian teaching for two millennia. Furthermore, they are consistent with broad, world-wide ecumenical teaching—a consensus which includes Roman Catholics, the Orthodox Churches, the world-wide Anglican Communion, and nearly all of the two-thirds world churches.
What troubles many United Methodists is that over the past 15 years, some of our bishops, though not violating church law themselves, are often supportive of and give encouragement to those who are violating our standards. Our bishops have the responsibility “To guard, transmit, teach, and proclaim, corporately and individually, the apostolic faith as it is expressed in Scripture and tradition, and, as they are led and endowed by the Spirit, to interpret that faith evangelically and prophetically” (Discipline, Par. 414.3).
The failure of some bishops to lead the church positively in matters of church teaching about human sexuality, along with a disappointing silence from others, is jeopardizing the unity, morale, and evangelistic ministry of the denomination. The church desperately needs to hear from its leaders that they disagree with the actions noted above, that they agree with the church’s standards, and that they intend to enforce them. We grieve for United Methodists, especially those in California, who are confused and hurt by their church’s actions and are looking for reliable help from their leaders.
Sadly, this kind of action and advocacy from the Western Jurisdiction is not new. In 2000, the Episcopal leader of the California-Nevada conference justified same-sex unions by stating that the conference had not broken covenant, because there is “another or more basic and fundamental covenant that has precedence over this one narrow focus of law.” The covenant he referred to was the Cal-Nevada Conference’s “longstanding covenant commitments for inclusiveness and justice.”
That bishop’s questionable claim was referred to the Judicial Council, which refuted it sharply in a decision given at the 2000 General Conference. The Council ruled: “If annual conferences were free to violate provisions of the Discipline because they disagree with them, this would have the effect of negating or ignoring the Discipline. Such acts would leave the Church without any enforceable law, which would lead to chaos in the Church.”
The ruling also reminded the church that “When a clergy person engages in mission and ministry in The United Methodist Church, that clergy person covenants to perform his/her duties in accord with the provisions of the Discipline” (emphasis ours). It also said that “A clergy person has the responsibility of adhering to the provisions of the Discipline and to assure that those for whom he/she has administrative responsibility do the same.”
If we fail to take our covenantal commitments seriously, the church will decline into anarchy and chaos. It is the responsibility of the Council of Bishops, as they give leadership to the entire church, to make sure this does not happen.
We call upon our bishops, district superintendents, and other leaders to administer the affairs of the church faithfully, according to the mandates and policies of the Book of Discipline. They should embody, both personally and administratively, leadership characterized by integrity and full accountability, according to the doctrines and standards of our church. To fail to so lead will result in chaos and continued decline for the denomination.
As we watch the turmoil in other mainline churches (The Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Church of Christ, and others), we should be committed to do all we can to remain a faithful church, working prayerfully to avoid similar division and further decline.
