Hours after a new law permitting homosexual marriage took effect in Washington, D.C., the oldest United Methodist church in the District issued a news release stating its intent to “celebrate same-sex weddings,” defying General Conference actions and Judicial Council rulings that expressly prohibit such ceremonies.
Dumbarton UMC in Washington, D.C.
The offer to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples came from Dumbarton UMC, a Georgetown congregation described in the 1998 book, Many Witnesses: A History of Dumbarton United Methodist Church, as having a “well-earned reputation for radicalism.”
The church has identified itself as a homosexuality-approving “Reconciling Congregation” since 1987. In 1990, UM Bishop Joseph H. Yeakel, then bishop of the Washington Area, intervened to stop a homosexual wedding scheduled at Dumbarton.
According to United Methodist Book of Discipline (¶341.6), “Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.” That language, approved by the 1996 General Conference, was retained by 2008 General Conference by an almost two-thirds vote (65%-35%). In 2004, the General Conference made clear that conducting such ceremonies is a chargeable offense.
Just last year, the UM Judicial Council ruled that United Methodist clergy, even if retired, may not perform wedding ceremonies uniting two people of the same sex, even in states or jurisdictions where such unions have been declared legal.
Dumbarton’s public pledge to violate United Methodist rules barring same-sex unions followed a unanimous vote last month by the congregation’s church council. As the likely date for legalization of homosexual marriage in D.C. drew near, the Dumbarton council voted 28-0 “to honor and celebrate the wedding of any couple, licensed in the District of Columbia, who seek to commit their lives to one another in marriage.”
Mary Kay Totty
The Rev. Mary Kay Totty, pastor of Dumbarton UMC, and “12 other ordained clergy who attend Dumbarton” will make themselves available to conduct same-sex weddings, according the news release issued by the church. The 12 other clergy were not named.
“We celebrate love and loyalty wherever it is found,” Totty said in the release.
A convener for the Baltimore-Washington Chapter of the liberal Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA), Mary Kay Totty was appointed to Dumbarton last year after serving several UM churches in Maryland.
MFSA, an unofficial network of clergy and laity founded in 1907, urges its members to “be involved in the transformation of the social order.”
According to the Baltimore-Washington Conference web site, Dumbarton UMC has an average worship attendance of about 90.
∞
In a post on the Reconciling Ministries Network blog, Anne Thompson Cook, a Dumbarton member and a founding board member of the Reconciling Ministries Network, echoed the church’s commitment to act counter to denominational policy.
As DC’s law granting marriage equality goes into effect…Dumbarton UMC is ready…. Our new [Marriage Equality Statement] (PDF) updates a statement we created nearly 20 years ago on holy unions. Then, as now, we deplored legal and church condemnations of same-sex committed relationships and declared that we would treat all couples equally.
At that time, when [Bishop Yeakel] read of our intentions in a Washington Post article, he was furious and called the entire church council into his office. Of all the things that were said that day, I will never forget him saying this: Same-sex marriage isn’t recognized in civil law! You can’t participate in something that’s not recognized in civil law!
Well, today — in the District of Columbia — same-sex marriage is recognized in civil law, and we celebrate this new step on the long road to full justice and equality for all.
Legalization of homosexual marriage in the District of Columbia was approved by the D.C. City Council late last year after the council rebuffed citizen demands for a referendum on the issue. Local courts also turned back calls for a voter referendum.
A Washington Post poll conducted in late January found that 59 percent of D.C. voters, including 70 percent of black voters, wanted the same-sex marriage issue put to a city-wide vote, rather than being decided by the City Council.
∞
In 2009, Dumbarton UMC was one of seven churches that sponsored a resolution on human sexuality that was approved by the Baltimore-Washington Conference but was later overturned by the United Methodist Judicial Council.
The Council ruled that the resolution, which said United Methodists are “divided regarding homosexual expressions of human sexuality,” effectively “negated the church’s clearly stated position.”
All seven congregations that sponsored the resolution are affiliated with Baltimore-Washington Area Reconciling United Methodists, a group that “seek[s] to affirm lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and ensure the full participation of people of all sexual orientations and gender identities in the ministry and life of the United Methodist Church, particularly in the Baltimore-Washington Conference.”
In 2008, one of the seven churches, D.C.’s Foundry UMC, began “recogniz[ing] same-sex unions in special ceremonies that fall just short of an official wedding,” according to a United Methodist News Service report.
∞
Timeline: The UMC and homosexual unions
- 1972— The General Conference amends the Social Principles in the UM Book of Discipline to include the following: “We do not recommend marriage between two persons of the same sex.”
- 1976 — The General Conference strengthens its opposition to homosexual marriage, again in the Social Principles, with this language: “We do not recognize a relationship between two persons of the same sex as constituting marriage.”
- 1980 — The General Conference alters the Social Principles statement to read: “We affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant, which is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman.”
- 1996 — The General Conference adopts a statement prohibiting UM clergy participation in homosexual-union ceremonies: “Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.”
- 1998 — The UM Judicial Council rules that clergy who conduct homosexual-union ceremonies can be brought to church trial.
- 2000 — In the California-Nevada Conference, a conference Committee on Investigation for Clergy Members decides that a group of 67 clergy members will not be brought to trial for their role in celebrating a same-sex union service.
- 2000 — Delegates to the General Conference vote overwhelmingly (69%-31%) to move the sentence prohibiting UM clergy from conducting homosexual unions from the Social Principles section of the Discipline to a section on the Ministry of the Ordained (¶341).
- 2004 — The General Conference amends ¶2702 in the Book of Discipline to clarify language related to chargeable clergy offenses, adding that “conducting ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions” and “performing same-sex wedding ceremonies” are both chargeable offenses.
- 2008 — The General Conference votes to retain the ¶2702 language adopted in 2004.
- 2009 — The UM Judicial Council rules that United Methodist clergy, even if retired, may not perform wedding ceremonies uniting two people of the same sex, even in states or jurisdictions where such unions have been declared legal.
The Catholic Church recently stood on principle and pulled out of D.C. rather than go against clear Christian teaching. This UM church is doing just the opposite.
Even though heterosexual marriage — isn’t it mind-boggling that we now have to say “heterosexual marriage?” — is not particularly in vogue in D.C., I’m sure most of the residents of D.C. do not favor same-sex marriage. The decision to legalize anti-Christian marriage was made by politicians who knew they had to kowtow to the white liberal establishment to keep the gravy train flowing.
What are the repercussions if they do not abide by the Book of Discipline? If these are “chargeable offenses,” as stated by the General Conference in 2004, what happens now? A slap on the wrist? Removal from the UMC? Loss of pensions?
If a tough stand is not taken, the entire structure of the UMC will continue to weaken and piece by piece crumble to the ground!
Note the above logo of the Baltimore Washington Area Reconciling churches: flaming rainbow colors = gay/lesbian community — and if you look really close you might see a tiny little cross.
That speaks volumes!! The cross of Jesus Christ (representing His love and holiness) is minimized and their agenda is maximized! Unbelievable!
I notice that the Discipline only speaks of a chargeable offense for the pastor. What about the church? In this case, I think the entire local congregation should be removed, that is, kicked out of the UMC entirely.
This congregation is in long-standing and open rebellion against the UMC; how can we keep such a church in our midst?
Regarding the above negative reactions to Dumbarton’s marriage equality policy: I imagine there were similar cries of alarm when a few brave churches decided to perform interracial marriages, which were, of course, against both the practice in their states and the policy of their denominations. A huge majority of the country thought such marriages were immoral, and obviously should not be permitted. Now, almost nobody does — this, finally, after the Supreme Court decided that it was discriminatory to deny marriage to two people of different races.
The same judicial logic clearly applies, I believe, to a loving couple of the same sex. The District Council and courts have rightly found this to be the case, and the Supreme Court has refused to intervene. We don’t do a popular vote about civil rights issues; such things should be left to the courts to decide.
I believe that churches that shrink in fear from same-sex marriage will be looked at in the future in the same way as we look at churches and the general population whose “Christian” sensibilities were shocked by the prospect of interracial marriages a few decades ago.
I say, “Bravo, Dumbarton! You are on the right side of history.”
[Editor's note: The author of the above comment attends Dumbarton UMC. On the topic of interracial marriage, see the recent article, "A Biblical Perspective on Interracial Marriage" (PDF), published in the Spring 2009 Criswell Theological Journal.]
The comparison of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage is an aging red herring. They are more dissimilar than similar. Although there may have been some local-church and state prohibitions on interracial marriage in the past, there is no Scripture or major Christian theological teaching that clearly condemns interracial relations. This is not so with same-sex relations.
All people, regardless of their ostensible sexual orientation, should be respected. But, if the UM Church capitulates on a basic issue such as this — the centrality of the man-woman relationship as sanctified in marriage is emphasized in Genesis and reiterated throughout the Bible, including by Christ Himself — then the UM Church as we’ve known it will become extinct in a few short years.
Lewis (a commenter above) appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court to justify what Dumbarton is doing. True Methodists would appeal to the Book of Discipline, and true Christians would appeal to the Holy Scriptures themselves, both of which could never condone their actions.
Thanks for your responses. My Reason and Experience (yes, I have studied the Wesleyan Quadrilateral) have led me to support Dumbarton’s position. The Bible is full of wisdom, and Jesus’ teachings about nonjudgmental compassion have influenced my life in profound ways.
However, I am also aware of the way the Bible has been used traditionally to justify all kinds of prejudice and power trips that are the opposite of Jesus’ message. The Bible’s view of marriage is full of stuff about multiple wives, suppression of women, etc. On the other hand, Jesus didn’t marry, and we were admonished not to cling to earthly things, including family.
Maybe the Bible hasn’t been used to argue against interracial marriage (thanks, Mark, for that), but it certainly was used powerfully to support one of the worst institutions in human history — slavery! Wesley was against slavery–not because the Bible said it was wrong — but because it causes suffering to our brothers and sisters, and Jesus said that this is wrong.
In my opinion there’s too much emphasis on sex in these discussions. Gay people are simply individuals who want the same things we all want, including loving partners to help us through the complex journey of life. To take a few passages out of context to condemn a large group of human beings, despite evidence that sexual orientation is in most cases unchangeable, and to say we respect them but don’t want to encourage or bless their commitment seems like a point of view doomed to extinction, not to mention a little mean-spirited!
Gay people are not going anywhere; better to have them in church in stable relationships than condemning them to “don’t ask, don’t tell” secrecy! At Dumbarton, openly gay people and straight people work harmoniously together seeking wisdom and truth to further the Kingdom of God. We have been doing this for decades now, and I challenge you to show me a more talented and dedicated group of good people.
P.S. My name is Roger Lewis Gilkeson and I’ve been a member of Dumbarton for over 30 years.
[Editor's note: For more on the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, see this 1992 article: "John Wesley On the Authority and Interpretation of the Scriptures," by Scott Jones (now the episcopal leader of the Kansas Area of the United Methodist Church). Also see Ted A. Campbell's essay, "'The Wesleyan Quadrilateral': The Story of a Modern Methodist Myth" in Doctrine and Theology in The United Methodist Church, edited by Thomas A. Langford (Kingswood Books, 2001).
For more on historic Christian views related marriage and sexuality, see How Christianity Changed the World by Alvin Schmidt (Zondervan, 2004).]
To Lewis (aka Roger): I appreciate your response and your honesty. I have a family member who is homosexual. I have professional acquaintances who are homosexual. I am not interested in being mean-spirited toward anyone, whether they’re homosexual or not.
When you say that folks who don’t advocate marriage redefinition are telling homosexuals that they don’t believe their relationships meet the criteria for biblical marriage you are absolutely correct. That’s based on objective analysis, however, not an attitude of hate and judgmentalism. When you try to demonize those with opposing viewpoints, you engage in the same kind of behavior many people exhibit toward homosexuals. That simply contributes to even greater polarization.
If you accept the Bible as inspired by God, and as the manual which Christians are to live by, then the decision about homosexual marriage becomes pretty simple. The Bible may not be as clear as we would like on a number of things, but this is not one of them.
The Bible affirms traditional marriage and never speaks in a positive way about same-sex relations. Indeed, some scholars see the man-woman relationship as the key to truly understanding much of Scripture. When that relationship goes well, so does the culture; when it goes sour, so does the culture. This is not just biblical history, it’s human history.
Your suggestion that the Bible can be used to argue for slavery in the same way in can be used to argue against same-sex marriage is simply incorrect. Many Christians never saw scriptural justification for slavery. Indeed, some have even viewed the entire book of Philemon as an argument against slavery. Do you think that John Newton saw biblical justification for slavery?
Suggesting that those who “don’t want to encourage or bless” same-sex marriage are behaving hatefully and prejudicially is ascribing to them a decision that’s not in their hands. It’s a decision that’s been made for them.
I respect the Dumbarton UMC for having the courage to act on their convictions. Now I wait to see if the Bishop of their area will have the courage to uphold the teachings of historic Christianity and the Discipline in the face of blatant rebellion.
There was another choice, of course. They could have stepped away from a denomination with which they are in total disagreement. Perhaps that would have been a step that would have been more respected.
I think asking a church to remove itself from a denomination that it feels committed to is unfair. There are more than 250 UM communities (churches, campus ministries, etc) that ally themselves with Reconciling Ministries Network whose mission is “mobiliz[ing] United Methodists of all sexual orientations and gender identities to transform our Church and world into the full expression of Christ’s inclusive love.”
If we note on the 1996 vote mentioned in the article, 35% of the General Conference delegates voted against the following statement: “Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches” Book of Discipline (¶341.6).
Should we ask those delegates to leave the UMC?
[Editor's note: The issue of "amicable separation" was raised in 2004 by prominent United Methodist leader William H. Hinson. Before retiring in 2001, Dr. Hinson served for 18 years as the senior pastor of the First United Methodist Church of Houston, Texas. At the time of his stroke-related death in December 2004, Bill Hinson was president of the Confessing Movement Within the United Methodist Church.
Following are excerpts of his remarks about amicable separation, made at breakfast gathering held during the 2004 General Conference in Pittsburgh:
I agree with you, Mark, that calling the other person’s position mean-spirited is polarizing. I’m sorry. I should have talked about my dismay over the unintended consequences of certain legalistic positions that lead to pain for the victims of those well-meaning attitudes.
I think it’s pretty clear that liberal Methodists believe that homosexual persons should be welcomed into the full life of the church because the preponderance of evidence indicates that homosexuality is not a choice like other choices that people are capable of making. I believe this way. Conservative Methodists tend to believe that — as unfortunate as it may be — the Bible has revealed that God hates homosexuality and, despite a huge amount of evidence to the contrary, homosexuality can be changed through prayer and effort. (If the homosexual can’t change, then he must remain celibate, living his life through without the benefit of intimate partnership, because of ancient texts from a faraway civilization.) I don’t believe this.
So there we are.
My argument is simply that the Methodist church — through much struggle — overcame racist and sexist arguments, in which many conservatives cited the Bible to argue that racial integration and the ordination of women was wrong. Methodists, because of their large membership, influenced other denominations to move away from long-entrenched positions of racial segregation and the refusal to ordain women as ministers.
Evangelicals feel strongly that the issue of homosexuality is a make or break issue for their concept of the church. Liberal Methodists feel that the tide of history is moving towards inclusion of homosexual persons into the life of the church in the same way that blacks and women have gained equal status to the white men who largely dominated the church for so long.
I guess we’ll have to see how things play out.
Mark, I’d like to have coffee with you some time. (You have my email address if you’re interested.) I’m sure we have more in common than we have differences about tons of things. We should all be searching for common ground, I believe, especially with subjects like this that seem as intractable as the Israeli-Palestine conflict!
I’m curious about your family member who is homosexual. How is he treated within the family? Does he believe that he has a choice, or was his homosexuality something he discovered? Does he have a partner? Is he part of a church community? Have you discussed your beliefs with him? Do you have a relationship based on mutual respect? Would a church like Dumbarton be a good fit for him, or would you rather see him at an all-gay church (segregated during worship from majority members of society)? These are the kinds of things I’d want to ask you. You could, of course, ask me anything you’d like.
I’ve seen the suffering of gay men and women whose lives have been made a living hell by well-meaning family members and preachers who only want to help them change their intrinsic natures. Encouraging stable relationship within a church community seems far preferable to a position that has caused so much pain to so many human beings. I think we should all be working together to help the suffering people of our planet — and gays should be part of this effort.
I guess that’s my bottom line. Thanks for this forum.
I believe there comes a time when, as church and as individual Christians we must stand up for that which we believe is right and just. My understanding of Wesley and the Methodist tradition is that this statement is right in line with that tradition.
It wasn’t so long ago that we as United Methodist believed it was wrong to ordain women. It was believed this was biblically ordained. Not everyone agreed. It took the courage of those standing for God’s call on the lives of both men and women for the church to finally change its view.
I’m not certain but I doubt this was a unanimous vote. I’m sure there were those that believed the church was heading in the wrong direction. Over time that has changed. In my experience, a large majority recognizes and celebrates the calling of women into ministry. (There are still others in the Christian community who consider the UMC to be apostate because of this.)
My point in all this is sometimes what is clearly wrong to one Christian can be seen worthy of celebration to another. The fact is the UMC, as well as theology as a whole, is bitterly divided on the biblical understanding of homosexuality. I applaud Dumbarton, and until the UMC can come to an actual consensus on this issue, I encourage them to stand by their convictions.
Rachel asks (perhaps rhetorically) if the 35% of delegates who voted against the marriage redefinition prohibition should leave the denomination. While I cannot get into the heads of those delegates, and I don’t know the context of the vote, I think the answer is up to the individual delegates.
By simply casting a vote their actions did not necessarily break any church teachings, they simply demonstrated an ignorance, misunderstanding, or willful disregard of them. We don’t know what they were thinking, or not thinking, when they voted, and it’s possible that many of them have since changed their minds.
Whatever the case, it’s far more honorable to leave a church if you disagree with its long-held precepts than to, in Trojan Horse fashion, attempt to change fundamental tenets which you supposedly were in agreement with before joining.
What if I joined a baseball team and, halfway through the season, decided that I didn’t like some of the rules? During the course of the season I had grown to appreciate a “more authentic” vision of baseball, one in which tennis balls, rather than baseballs, would be used and that batters would be given the choice of whether to use a tennis racket or traditional baseball bat.
What if someone suggested that, since I seemed to like tennis more that baseball, that I consider joining a tennis team instead? Would this be considered hateful and mean-spirited, or simply a suggestion based on factual observation?
Obviously, what we’re talking about here is much more consequential than a baseball game, but fundamental beliefs about Christian marriage should not be determined by individual feelings or anecdotal observations. And they should not be up for a vote. But if they were, I’d like to also poll the millions of Christian saints who’ve come before us. I suspect that such a vote would not be close.
[Editor's note: The commenter raises the issue of sensus fidelium, or the "sense of the faithful." For more on that topic, see "Maxie Dunnam: Amendments Outcome Reflects 'Sense of the Faithful,'" a MethodistThinker post from August 2009.]
As a long-time Methodist (and member of Youth for Christ when younger), heterosexual, married 37 years, going on 65 years of age, I am dismayed to read of the un-Christian- like thinking that is still going on towards gay people. Many of you must be older and stuck in the past, tho I learned long ago through education and as a matter of commen sense, that gay people are born this way.
With the way they were treated in the past, its no wonder they felt the need to stay in the “closet”. Why would anyone choose to be treated so poorly by family, friends, and the narrow-thinking society (this country anyway!)? Gay people have the same wants and desires in relationships as do straight people and need the same rights and protection under the law as well. While their expression of sexuality for their same sex is so foreign to our thinking, it nevertheless is normal for them.
Back when the Bible was written we didn’t know what we now know. Just as babies are born with all kinds of physical and mental disabilities, we don’t deny them the right to marry when they grow up. Do you really think Christ would approve of such judgemental treatment of your fellow contributing, loving, members of society who happen to be different in this particular way??? I don’t think so!
Wise-up Mark and others of his mind-set. Love everyone and don’t discriminate or use the bible and old church doctrine to justify your backward, judgemental actions and fear (of what?).
One of the most important things is that God is sovereign and therefore gets to set the rules. The standards God has set are for Everlasting Life and are not to be changed to fit the culture. It is God who made us, not we ourselves.
When a person goes to the store to buy a rule or tape measure, how does he know he is buying the same measurement of a foot (or meter) each time? These products are manufactured against an agreed-upon standard. That standard applies to all without variance.
The UMC is at a crossroads. I think we need to take the ancient paths that lead to righteousness.
Accountability is now at the forefront of how the UMC will operate in the days and years to come.
[Editor's note: The following comment was extremely lengthy. It has been shortened for posting.]
One of the primary things that is missed in this discussion about “changing” the definition of marriage is, as with many definitions, they change over time…. [Anyone who] says that the definition of marriage is settled and unchanging…is completely misinformed and spreading misinformation. The definition of marriage is ever shifting. One could argue there are as many definitions of marriage as there are marriages.
Furthermore, when one claims that the so-called gay and lesbian lifestyle is contrary to Christian Teaching, they are correct in so far as being gay is contrary to Christian tradition.
However, any interpretation of Holy Scripture — which according to our denomination’s official stance is to be given primacy in the quadrilateral — which leads one to believe that being lesbian or gay is contrary to God’s will is wrong. Any interpretation of scripture that leads one to such a conclusion is coloured by tradition and one’s own social location. The vast majority of interpreters of the Bible whom we appeal to as tradition were “heterosexual” and as such their sexual orientation has skewed their interpretations. To be frank, the interpretation says that gays and lesbians are sinful, the Bible does not.
Finally, there are at least three relationship gay or lesbian relationships in the bible: Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, Daniel and Ashpenaz. I personally believe that one cannot read 1 Samuel 18 and not hear the deep echos of Genesis 2:24 — I have little doubt that David and Jonathan were married….
I want to close with a quote from a conservative Anglican Bishop, James Jones. He provides a great comparison between Just War theorists and Christian Pacifists.
He stands on the right calling all of us to be in fellowship. We can disagree about deep theological issues, and still remain united as a church, just as we have for centuries over the Just War/Pacifism divide. This is a model that the United Methodist Church needs to adopt. Calls for people to leave the denomination are not helpful — the further fracturing of the Body of Christ is, in my view, contrary to the Will of God. We need to stand faithfully with each other even in the midst of deep disagreement.
[Editor's note: The author, formerly of Dumbarton UMC in Washington, D.C., is a seminarian at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, Calif., a school with a formal relationship with the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).]
Despite implications to the contrary, I don’t think there’s anything I’ve said that prohibits expressing love and hospitality to anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. Some of these comments suggest that those who claim a monopoly on non-judgmentalism are possibly hiding their own judgmentalism (e.g., “…don’t discriminate or use the Bible and old church doctrine to justify your backward, judgmental actions…”).
Unfortunately, some of these posts also show how inculcated our culture has become with postmodernist subjectivity and moral ambiguity (e.g., “…what is clearly wrong to one Christian can be seen worthy of celebration to another…”). Like it or not, there are core tenets to the Christian faith; it’s not our prerogative to change the ones we don’t particularly like.
I would also point out that those who are so vigorously pushing marriage redefinition within Christendom are the dividers, not those who want to adhere to traditional Christian teaching. Any future church split can be laid at their feet.
Perhaps there are at least two things we might all agree on that have been alluded to in previous posts: 1) We should work together to alleviate the suffering of all of God’s children, and 2) We should treat others with respect in the midst of what may be profound and passionate disagreement.
Paragraph 161.F of the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline that we as a national church, “affirm that God’s grace is available to all. We will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us.” It further states that “we implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.”
This paragraph goes beyond societal labels of race, gender, socioeconomic status, or sexuality to affirm the UMC’s commitment to minister to all people. With this consideration, Dumbarton’s decision to marry same-sex couples responds to the core of this essential element of the UMC as outlined in this paragraph and meets the needs for pastors to fulfill their pastoral responsibilities of counseling and affirmation without discriminating among parishioners.
The Social Principles of the United Methodist Church similarly states that “certain basic human rights and civil rights are due all persons,” and it further states that “we are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for all persons, regardless of sexual orientation.”
Mark brings up the need to take a biblical perspective on the question of same-sex marriages, and states that “The Bible affirms traditional marriage and never speaks in a positive way about same-sex relations.” Although I recognize the viewpoint from which Mark approaches this response to same-sex relations and the Bible, I think that one must also consider that: 1) The original translations of the Bible are far from the biblical translations that we have on shelves in our own homes today. The English terminology of ‘homosexuality’ was not even a concept with the original Biblical writings; 2) Although the Bible may not affirm same-sex marriages by directly stating that “homosexuals should be married,” I think that the words of Jesus, according to the Gospel of Mark, should be heeded: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Even within the early Christian Church, Paul recognizes the importance of affirming all individual’s differences in his first letter to the Corinthians, by recognizing our differences in spiritual gifts, but affirming their service and workings for which the “manifestation of the Spirit is given for the Common Good.”
Based upon my own experience in a Reconciling Congregation, my reason that all individuals deserve the equal right to the civil and human right of marriage, and the Biblical basis that all people should be loved and affirmed, I believe that Dumbarton UMC is taking a much needed step in leading the Methodist Church to more fully recognize its commitment to “commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.”
As a Washingtonian, I can tell you how this city thinks. According to recent major polls, a strong majority of the city’s population supports legalized same-sex marriage. In fact, only two out of 12 councilmen voted against the measure.
As a Christian, I am thinking about attending Dumbarton United Methodist Church. For many of us young Christians, how a church treats their gay and bisexual brethren is critical to our willingness to join. Although there are tons of pro-gay Christian and Jewish congregations in DC, Dumbarton United Methodist Church must be especially lauded for leading the way for many other United Methodists who will now likely follow suit. Congrats Dumbarton United Methodist Church!
Well, it seems you, Mark, are the one alienating people from the Methodist Church by not realizing that almost everyone knows or has known a gay person they like and maybe even love as a family member. Denying a right to marry the one he or she loves in the church makes a statement of disapproval and non-inclusiveness. What is not to celebrate here within the church? If all the people who are gay and the straight people who love and support them leave the church, you will be left with an even more dwindling church membership. Your statement that the Bible is clear marriage should be between a man and a woman reflects an opinion of a fallible human being’s viewpoint in a culture that never used the word homosexual, because it wasn’t a concept that was really known or understood at all at the time except for an exploitive kind of sexuality — such as rape or an older man abusing a younger man.
The people I know and admire are ones who reject the church policy of not conducting marriage ceremonies between two committed gay people, some of whom are raising children. The hysteria that somehow gay people threaten our children is not born out by the facts. As with past issues of tradition, in modern times we’ve come to have a greater understanding of how discrimination has crippled many peoples lives, and consequently, we have progressed in many areas. Sex, a natural function, seems to be a real hang-up for so many people. We are all God’s creatures. By denying human rights to gay people, you seem to be giving the OK to mistreatment of one of God’s creatures that you (not God) find inferior.
Words born of ignorance and fear are dangerous, very often a power trip, and come from a controlling personality. We’ve seen them throughout history. The people being pulled into this aberration need education into the reality of being gay and should follow the love in their heart. The “traditionalists” in this forum say they do love them — “some of my best friends…” — but it seems you don’t really understand how important getting married in their church is to them. It’s a human right you take for granted and a real insult to deny a loving gay couple the chance to enter into that kind of contract of mutual love and responsibility.
I appreciate Michelle’s comments and want to respond since she mentioned me in her post.
The statement from the United Methodist Book of Discipline that “we implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends” does not imply an endorsement of same-sex marriage.
Michelle states that “The original translations of the Bible are far from the biblical translations that we have on shelves in our own homes today. The English terminology of ‘homosexuality’ was not even a concept with the original Biblical writings.”
Whether or not a Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic term is directly translatable as “homosexuality,” it’s clear what is being talked about. And those Christians who lived closer to the time of the original writing understood what was being said. Consequently, I think the Biblical teaching on this matter is not in serious doubt.
If you want to disagree with Scripture, that’s another matter. But let’s not make language mean something other than what is has historically been understood to mean.
I’d like to know where Malcolm is getting his information. There was a poll in the Washington Post several weeks ago that showed only a narrow majority of D.C. residents favored same-sex marriage. But only 37% of black residents favored it. And a majority of all respondents believed there should be a popular vote to decide the matter, but they have thus far been denied that opportunity.
It’s important to realize that when U.S. citizens have been allowed to vote on marriage redefinition they have always upheld traditional marriage, even in left-leaning states such as California and Maine. Could this be why same-sex marriage advocates are prohibiting such a vote in D.C.?
I believe the Christian case for traditional marriage is exceptionally strong. An analysis by Al Mohler is available at http://www.albertmohler.com/2005/02/09/the-illusion-of-moral-neutrality-robert-george-on-marriage/
But there are also “secular” reasons arguing against marriage redefinition, and professor Robert George of Princeton lays some of them out at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322084279548434.html.