So it all just degenerates into "Who can win in court, who gets the building, who keeps the silverware?"
THAT would be sad.
So similar things happenned, Hedrick, regarding PCUSA and PCA?
PCUSA yes. PCA, no. The PCA is conservative enough that there's never been any serious consideration of accepting homosexuality. Anyone who would advocate that is disciplined well before it becomes a significant issue for the denomination.
Within the PCUSA the final decision was made by changing the constitution to pretty explicitly permit homosexuals to be ordained, and shortly thereafter, to be married. However before that there were a serious of cases in church courts, much as there have been in the UMC. Since national policy was (in both churches) quite clear in requiring pastors to be either celibate or in a heterosexual marriage, the results of these cases were pretty clear.
I don't know the history of the book of discipline, but in the PCUSA there had been disagreement within the Church on this issue for decades. The congregation to which I belong had a gay pastor decades ago, and it was not obviously illegal at that time. However there were a series of requests for official decisions, first as authoritative interpretations of the constitution by the General Assembly, and finally a constitutional change in 1994 whose words are nearly identical to the provisions of the UMC discipline. It was pretty clear at the time that opinion was changing, and that that was pretty much the last time at which it would have been possible to get the necessary majority to write a prohibition into the constitution. (In my view this constitutional change was in effect a time bomb. It was obvious that it wouldn't last long, but adopting it and later repealing it caused a lot more damage than leaving it to the presbyteries would have.)
Previous to the constitutional change there had been a sort of guerrilla war with churches calling gay pastors, and people challenging it. The modification was intended to make it easier to challenge. However our highest judicial council set a very high bar for proof. You just about had to perform the act in question in front of a church court to be convicted.
I think only 2 ministers ever had action taken against them, and they were test cases. However I think generally gay folk who would have sought ordination did not. That provision lasted until 2006.
Yes, things were handled legally. The difficulty of this issue is that conservatives feel that they can't in good conscience exist in the same denomination as homosexual clergy. Thus all attempts at compromise fail. And when you can't live with gays in your church, the obvious thing to do is pass rules against them and then demand that the rules be enforced.
The UMC's situation exactly parallels the PCUSA's situation about 10 years ago. The PCUSA had commissions of various sorts trying to work out some kind of compromise to allow both sides to live together. They failed for us and they will fail for you, for the same reason.
At that point the question becomes whether the denomination is willing to allow churches that can't tolerate being in the same denomination as gays to leave. Many presbyteries in the PCUSA have been sympathetic to conservative congregations. Most of us still consider them Christian congregations, and don't want to impede their work.
Unfortunately the national denomination pressured presbyteries to demand that churches pay large amounts of money to keep their property. I'm not sure how often presbyteries actually did that. Ours hasn't. But some did, and it often led to court cases. It's hard to complain. When the denomination chooses to hold a church hostage by their property, it's hard to complain when they sue.
In my opinion the UMC can't stop a split, though it may not take the same form as it did for us. Our national body eventually accepted changes to allow full participation of gays. I think the UMC may have enough African representatives to stop that. I can envision liberal and conservative jurisdictions separating and forming two competing Methodist denominations.
Many congregations feel that it's necessary to their mission to fully accept gays. Many other congregations are unwilling to remain in a denomination where any churches fully accept gays. I very much doubt you'll be able to change either of those positions, no matter how many committees you have trying to promote unity.
The main thing you need to be thinking about is whether to allow a friendly separation or not. Can you allow separation of national organizations? If they're interested, is it OK for both groups to continue in existing pension plans? Can congregations that disagree leave amicably or will you fight in court to hold their property hostage. The PCUSA did the latter far too often. I think that's a flagrant violation of Jesus' teaching.
