Does The UMC Ordain Homosexual Ministers?

[James Is Back]

I read somewhere that some do. I was just curious if they did or not or what the UMC stance is on this or members of the UMC stance on this as well.

 

[revanneosl]

Of course we do. All churches do & always have. The UMC is, sadly, one of several denominations which forces GLB persons with a vocation to ministry to lie about their personal lives.

 

[pilgrim42]

What kind of ministry is a person going to have when they become liars? Liars are not included in the Kingdom of Heaven. Seems to me that it just isn't consistent.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I read somewhere that some do. I was just curious if they did or not or what the UMC stance is on this or members of the UMC stance on this as well.

Well the opinion of members is all over the place. Officially, the UMC does ordain homosexual pastors, and not just those who are hiding that they happened to be LBGT. The principal that the UMC demands of its pastors is celibacy in singleness and fidelity in marriage. So, gay pastors who were celibate have never been a question for the UMC.

The more difficult question no facing the UMC is the fact that same-sex marriage is now legal in many states, but the UMC has officially stated that it find the practice of homosexuality incompatible with Christian teaching. So, to date, UM pastors are not allowed to participate in same-sex weddings -- neither to officiate at it nor to themselves get married. But we haven't said that if a lay couple were to get legally married in their state that we would refuse to recognize their marriage.

So, we are caught having the world in which we are called to minister is changing on this issue faster than the UMC is. It will for sure be a major issue at our next General Conference (where these sorts of decisions are made for the entire denomination) in 2016. However, between now and then expect to see some people pushing things and testing the resolve of church leaders to actually hold them accountable to the official policy. In some regions those who break church law are being punished, even defrocked; while in other regions those others who are doing the same thing are not even being given even a sideways glance.

 

[St Antony]

...So, we are caught having the world in which we are called to minister is changing on this issue faster than the UMC is....

So, Christians should change on this issue just because the world does? Not according to the Scriptures. Jesus tells us:

“If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” (John 15:18-19).

As Christians, we must resist the pressure to change because the popular culture says we must. I urge my brothers in the UMC to stand firm and refuse to sanction behavior the Scriptures clearly define as sin.

 

[GraceSeeker]

...So, we are caught having the world in which we are called to minister is changing on this issue faster than the UMC is....

Yes.

So, Christians should change on this issue just because the world does?

Nobody here said that.

As Christians, we must resist the pressure to change because the popular culture says we must. I urge my brothers in the UMC to stand firm and refuse to sanction behavior the Scriptures clearly define as sin.

Fine. But right behavior is about more than standing firm and refusing to sanction homosexual behavior. Another behavior that Scripture defines as sin is bearing false witness. Putting words in someone else's mouth would, in my opinion, so qualify.

 

[circuitrider]

St Antony,

I'm one of those United Methodists who believes that the culture is right about this one, that we should accept and encourage full inclusion of LGBT persons. The culture isn't always wrong. When the culture happens to be right the church ends up looking really dumb when we oppose it and then have to change our view later.

In the past this has including the Church sanctioning people who believed the earth went around the sun, in parts of the world the Church supporting slavery, the Church not supporting the equality of women, in the southern US many churches at one time being against interracial marriage. The list goes fairly long of places where parts of the Church held a position that the culture ended up being right about and made the Church looked backward, out of touch and worse.

I'm reminding, for example, that not too many years ago Southern Baptist found themselves apologizing for supporting slavery. I'd hate to see the Church having to apologize in 50 years for not supporting LGBT people. But we may have to.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I hate one-liners, dead horses, logical fallacies, and "here's something similar so this applies to". That in mind, I'm going to commit all of those sins.

For centuries, it was understood, clearly, that the will of God was for women to be subservient to men, even silent, unemployed, and uneducated.

For centuries, it was understood that God favored the white man and gave him the authority over the black man and women, including owning him. Slavery was not something Christians thought immoral. In fact, for many Christians, slavery was vehemently defended in the legislature as a Christian teaching. After slavery, segregation.

It was understood for centuries that if a person had a horrible, disfiguring disease it was because of sin, one they or their parents had committed, and they were being punished.

For centuries, it was understood that only those born in a certain country, to certain parents, were worthy of the kingdom of God.

There was a time the Bible 'clearly' said that it was a fathers duty to stone his daughter if she was unfaithful to him or her husband (in the context of that culture, a woman was faithful to her father by being a virgin, he 'owned' her sexuality until such a time as he permitted some other man to have it)

There was a time when the Bible 'clearly' stated that touching a woman during her period was a grave sin and if she failed to prevent you from doing so, she was to face grave punishment.

There was a time when the Bible 'clearly' said the Sun was heaven, and that the Sun revolved around the earth.

God didn't change, the scripture didn't change. God's will didn't change. We didn't re-translate the Bible or make some sort of big theological breakthrough. We didn't unearth some ancient scripture and Jesus didn't pop back through a cloud to correct us. Over time, culture began to shift to the will of God. It began to reject various injustices that turned out to be powerful humans trying to control less powerful humans, and using God to do it. Jesus himself 'called out' a number of the Jewish laws.

If you have a different opinion about human sexuality that's fine. Some of my dear friends and colleagues would tell me to differ in opinion (one way or another) is inexcusable; but as someone who has been on both sides of that fence I'd feel like I was a hypocrite if I did the same. But I would encourage you to take a step back and ask yourself if folks on this side of the issue of human sexuality are actually trying to make the Bible fit culture; or if they believe they are trying to make culture fit the Bible? Some of us don't find homosexuality to be a "clear sin", in that sense. Sure, in many english translations; but breaking down the historic, contextual text the line is a little fuzzier.

I'm not asking you to change your opinion, just your frame of mind. I think that there's a disconnect when people on the traditional side think that those of us who struggle with the issue and wrestle with whether the church has it 'right', are admitting that it's a sin but want the rules to change to fit culture; because overwhelmingly that's not the case. While culture might affect their perspective (it would be naiive to think otherwise; and that's true for both sides of the coin); most people I know aren't really all that concerned with culture; but Biblical obedience. They've seen examples of people trying to use the Bible to hurt people and they think this is one of those times; and that the Bible supports equality.

There ARE those who say the Bible is irrelevant, but that's not been the case of United Methodists I know who are in support of LGBT Equality. One of the things that makes me proud to be a UM is that even those who hold positions that are in conflict with the UMC or even the broader Christian church do so with a high understanding of Biblical authority and the ability to defend their position using scripture, tradition, reason and experience. As opposed to perhaps some Fundamentalists I know who simply defend their position with literal readings of texts and proof-texting (the same things that justified slavery, poor treatment of women, etc.); or folks on the far left who simply say "Well the Bible is irrelevant today, and is just a guidebook". Because I don't believe either of those things, and I'm glad there are so many others who are with me in both holding a high view of scripture; and being comfortable asking if the Bible is as "clear" as so many people tell us (because it's been 'clear' many times before. And suddenly 'clear' in the complete opposite.)

 

[Basil the Great]

I doubt that the UMC will change it's position in 2016, but it probably will by 2020 or 2024. What I wonder is what will happen to the UMC, if and when it does change it's stance? Will the UMC split in two or will those opposed to a change, if it does occur, leave the UMC for a more conservative denomination?

 

[GraceSeeker]

I doubt that the UMC will change it's position in 2016, but it probably will by 2020 or 2024. What I wonder is what will happen to the UMC, if and when it does change it's stance? Will the UMC split in two or will those opposed to a change, if it does occur, leave the UMC for a more conservative denomination?

If nothing changes between now and 2020 or 2024, I can guarantee you that it won't be the conservative part of the UMC that is looking for a new home.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

If nothing changes between now and 2020 or 2024, I can guarantee you that it won't be the conservative part of the UMC that is looking for a new home.

I'm not so sure. I'm hearing that from both sides of the fence. I'm hearing liberals tell me that the conservatives will eventually leave and conservatives saying the thing. It seems both camps intend to 'stick it out', at least where I'm at.

Other denominations who have handled this same struggle have split. I sure hope that doesn't happen. I really don't want to see that happen to my denomination.

 

[GraceSeeker]

The reason that I say if nothing changes between now and 2020 or 2024 that it won't be the conservatives leaving, is because by then, Africa with its conservative bent will be so large that there won't be any changing of those parts of the Discipline that the more liberal elements of the UMC want to see changed in the direction they want to see it changed.

There might be things that happen that could lead to conservatives leaving, but that would only happen if the status quo which is felt in the USA prevailed, but by 2024 the status quo will be being set by Africa. To appease some the GC could still adopt some changes to make life more tolerable for liberals in the USA, i.e. more local or regional rule, but that would be a change. And I said, "if nothing changes."

 

[RomansFiveEight]

The reason that I say if nothing changes between now and 2020 or 2024 that it won't be the conservatives leaving, is because by then, Africa with its conservative bent will be so large that there won't be any changing of those parts of the Discipline that the more liberal elements of the UMC want to see changed in the direction they want to see it changed.

There might be things that happen that could lead to conservatives leaving, but that would only happen if the status quo which is felt in the USA prevailed, but by 2024 the status quo will be being set by Africa. To appease some the GC could still adopt some changes to make life more tolerable for liberals in the USA, i.e. more local or regional rule, but that would be a change. And I said, "if nothing changes."

That makes sense. Admittedly, I'm 'tunnelvisioned' here to those I know in my own area. It's probably similar where you are, but it's amazing how varying on these issues my colleagues in my area are. Which makes for some good discussion, learning, and personal growth.

 

[BryanW92]

I'm not so sure. I'm hearing that from both sides of the fence. I'm hearing liberals tell me that the conservatives will eventually leave and conservatives saying the thing. It seems both camps intend to 'stick it out', at least where I'm at.

Other denominations who have handled this same struggle have split. I sure hope that doesn't happen. I really don't want to see that happen to my denomination.

The non denominationals in my county are taking in former United Methodists at an alarming rate. But it's a very conservative county because it is mostly military and ex-military so we don't represent the cross section of modern America.

 

[GraceSeeker]

The non denominationals in my county are taking in former United Methodists at an alarming rate. But it's a very conservative county because it is mostly military and ex-military so we don't represent the cross section of modern America.

Yeah, I've never understood that. If all those who have left the UMC because the denominational officials weren't conservative enough for them would have just stayed put, this discussion would have been over more than a decade ago.

 

[BryanW92]

Yeah, I've never understood that. If all those who have left the UMC because the denominational officials weren't conservative enough for them would have just stayed put, this discussion would have been over more than a decade ago.

This is a discussion between two passionate, entrenched, and vocal minorities in the UMC. the people who leave are the ones who are weary of the discussion (like me). I joined one side in that battle earlier this year and actually joined some groups, subscribed to some newsletters, etc. After a short time I just decided that I didn't care, so I unsubscribed and quit those groups.

The UMC would probably be better off if the Progressives won because,

1. The fight would be over. (Until they win, there will be no peace.)
2. Conservatives outside the church already think that you ordain gays.
3. Hopefully, Bishops would be wise enough to only send gay pastors to highly Progressive congregations.

 

[circuitrider]

There are more complicating factors than just what the Discipline says or how votes to change the Discipline go.

The numbers of pastors and bishops who are willing to openly defy the current position of the Church is growing. This means, effectively, that there area areas in the country where the Discipline cannot be enforced. Because of that, I hear conservatives talking about leaving and I hear liberals talking about staying.

It could be that a faction of conservative pastors of larger conservative churches may pull out because they cannot stand that the current prohibition on same sex marriage etc. cannot be universally enforced. Many conservatives are unwilling to live with that.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

It's a rough issue that's going to have to come to a head eventually, unfortunately. I just hope some semblance of Unity can come out of it and we can stop this nonsense of the issue of Human Sexuality being greater than reaching the lost and focus instead on the work we're supposed to be doing.

A lot of it is regional. I know regions, like my own, where the Baptist churches and non-denoms are becoming increasingly conservative. Previously they were conservative, but now they are encroaching into fundamentalist. 20 years ago they wouldn't marry gays. Today they won't marry, baptize, allow in worship or talk to gays. In fact, when my UM church had an unmarried gay couple in our church, our church got kicked out of the ministerial alliance for refusing to 'rebuke them and send them away' and 'allowing sin in our doors' (this is before I was appointed there. Though my response wouldn't have been any different). That combined with a growing intolerance for a discriminatory view of women (Women should be mothers and homemakers and when they have careers it's immoral and they definitely shouldn't be clergy is become less and less tolerable, even among conservatives. One of our communities churches actually does preach that God doesn't want women to have careers and that public schools are evil and it's a womans job to teach her children in the home.) And so on and so forth. So they are coming to the UMC; which has a semblance of being 'in the middle'. Some have come and gone when they realize we are not literalists nor going to tell them all the people they are supposed to hate; some have come and become committed members of the denomination. Some have even come and become UM Clergy! (Like yours truly).

In other regions of the country though; that's not the case. In the north, the conservative churches are more "Sane conservatives". They more resemble what the UMC in the south resembles; right-leaning moderates. And in the south, that sort of theology is a little more tolerated. Here in middle-america though; at least in my community, I'm seeing a rejection of the continued move-to-the-right of the churches. And a lot of that is influenced by homosexuality. Homosexuality has become the most important issue in the entire universe, and much like when the puritans decided not to do anything that looked like Catholocism, the modern day church has decided that anything churches viewed as 'liberal' do is to be rejected; so theologies that were once shared by UM's and SBC or even the UCC and the SBC are now polar opposites.

But, because of this, there are areas that are becoming more conservative (for the UMC that is). Because the right-leaning moderates, who generally support a traditional view of marriage, are flocking to the UMC in those areas. They no longer 'belong' in the churches they grew up with, who are as far to the right now as they can get.

All that aside, frankly it makes sense that progressives are more resilient. Some folks act like they are stubborn and waiting for eventual change; or that they'll keep fighting until they get their way; and that's true in some cases (and it's true of many Evangelicals I know; including those aforementioned right-leaning folks who want to bring some of their SBC theology to the UMC, like YEC and inerrantism), but remember as of yet there's been no change to the UMC's stance on human sexuality. Ever. So every progressive in the UMC who is in support of inclusion has for their entire time in the UMC lived in a church where gay marriage was forbidden. It's only natural for them to continue to 'wait it out' until a change is made; though I personally know a few who have left now that there are several 'options' out there for a wesleyan-minded progressive.

 

[circuitrider]

RomansFiveEight,

Actually I think there was a change. The prohibition was added to the Discipline in 1972 I believe. So before that there was no official prohibition though there may have been a practical prohibition. If the phrase "incompatible with Christian teaching" had never been added we might not be in this mess.

Frankly, it is a very poor phrase because theologically it doesn't tell you anything. Incompatible with which Christian teaching or teachings? It doesn't say.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

RomansFiveEight,

Actually I think there was a change. The prohibition was added to the Discipline in 1972 I believe. So before that there was no official prohibition though there may have been a practical prohibition. If the phrase "incompatible with Christian teaching" had never been added we might not be in this mess.

Frankly, it is a very poor phrase because theologically it doesn't tell you anything. Incompatible with which Christian teaching or teachings? It doesn't say.

I understand that; but I don't think it's unfair to say that the UMC has always, in some way, prohibited same sex marriage. I'm not so sure a lack of the language would get us out of the mess because if there was no prohibition then there would be clergy performing those ceremonies, and that would ruffle the feathers of the evangelicals, and before you know it the language is being added at General Conference anyway. Given the demographic of our church, the culture we live in, etc., that language or something like it being added was and is inevitable; and I think that a change to removing that language is also inevitable. It's just when it happens and how it happens. Whether it's a progressive break-off into a more inclusive denomination, or a conservative break-off leaving the UMC without resistance, or just a total split or some sort of jurisdictional solution. But frankly the issue all across the globe (with only a couple of exceptions, like Africa) is very very rapidly moving away from the traditional point of view. Support for a prohibition is waning. So something is GOING to happen, one way or another. My prayer though is whatever happens leave us with some form of unity. I love my church!