The Narrow Path Ministries

I'm not part of the United Methodist (the term itself is an oxymoron) denomination, but I have friends who are. I was reading, today, the material from the Upper New York Annual Conference. This conference votes on recommendations to the General Conference (2012). I typed up a summary of where they are at in regards to gay rights.

Gay Rights in the United Methodist Church (Upper NY District)

Background to the Proposed Changes
1. The United Methodist Church has for many years supported the separation of church and state.
2. The United Methodist Church discipline currently contains statements…
a) Supporting laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of 1 man and 1 woman
b) Not Condoning the practice of homosexuality (incompatible with Christianity)
c) Forbidding self-avowed practicing homosexuals from the ordination process
d) Forbidding its clergy/facilities from involvement in a same-sex marriage ceremony
e) Forbidding denominational funds to be given to any gay caucus or group
3. The Upper New York Annual Conference recommends amendments to the United Methodist General Conference (which meets every 4 years)

Arguments for the Proposed Changes
1. Support for laws that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman is beyond the scope of the Church. Any attempt to impose a view rejecting same-sex marriage through law shows a lack of respect for people of differing views.
2. The current language of the discipline is judgmental, condemnatory, un-Christlike, hypocritical, discriminatory & bigoted.
3. The current language does not conform to the present state of scientific knowledge.
4. The current language is at odds with the positions of other denominations most closely related to it and with the emerging ecumenical consensus.
5. Currently serving homosexual clergy have both maintained the highest standards of holy living and served our church in all levels of ordained ministry since our denomination’s formation. The idea that homosexual persons are inherently immoral is absolutely false. Moral qualifications have no relevance to sexual orientation.
6. Homosexual families bring blessings to our churches.
7. The current language hinders evangelism. The church is aging at an alarming rate and there is a growing disconnect between the official position of the church and the understanding of younger adults about human sexuality.
8. The current language hinders the recruitment of qualified clergy. Many ministers are currently going against their consciences by keeping to the current language. This is unhealthy for both our clergy and our churches.

Approval of the Proposed Changes
1. The Upper New York Annual Conference recommended amendments to the General Conference and discipline which would remove existing language (a-e above) and make it more contemporary.
2. The votes were roughly 575-425 in favor of removing existing language.
3. It is considered by some unlikely that the changes will be approved in 2012, but more and more likely that they will ultimately find approval in 2016 or 2020.

I also live in NY State. I typed up a similar summary...

Gay Rights in the United States of America (New York State)

Background to the Bill
1. NY State domestic relations law contained no prohibition against or allowance for marriages between individuals of the same sex.
2. NY State court of Appeals have previously held that the law limits marriage within NY State to different-sex couples.
3. NY State courts have, however, held that marriages between individuals of the same sex legally performed in other jurisdictions are entitled to recognition in New York in the absence of express legislation to the contrary.

Arguments for the Bill
1. NY State was already recognizing such marriages performed out of state.
2. The freedom to marry, according to the US Supreme Court, is one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free people. As free persons, this basic right should be extended to same-sex couples. Failure to do so is a denial of equality that limits them personally, socially and economically.
3. Granting legal recognition to these relationships can only strengthen NY families since marriage produces incalculable benefits for society by fostering stable familial relationships.
4. NY State has stood at the forefront in advancing equal rights to all. Gay rights are simply a continuation of women’s rights and the breaking of the color barrier.
5. Allowing same-sex marriage would have numerous positive fiscal impacts.

Approval of the Bill
1. On June 15th 2011, the Democrat controlled NY State Assembly passed the same-sex marriage bill by a vote of 80-63.
2. On June 24th 2011, the NY State Senate passed the same-sex marriage bill by a vote of 33-29. An affirmation of federal and state constitutional protection of the rights of religious institutions was seen as key to passage of the bill in the Republican controlled senate.
3. The same-sex marriage bill was signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo and will take effect July 24th 2011.

I should say that the 'arguments' listed above are from the legislators themselves, not from me!

As for my own opinion. I am not very upset about the NY bill. We live in a democracy and the majority of NYers seem to support gay marriage, so it is hardly surprising. Further, NY makes no statements of attempt to be Christlike. The UMC on the other hand, claims to be a Christian church. I find their statements far more problematic. And I think it is telling that they argue much like their secular counterparts.

I guess I don't quite understand the twisting (or ignoring)of scripture. Well, I guess i understand it but it saddens me.

I suppose that if a Christian is a homosexual he simply must abstain (i.e. be celibate). I would further argue that he/she should pray for deliverance ("The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, because He has anointed Me...to proclaim liberty to the captives...")

Christians who are alcoholics must abstain from alcohol.

There is no fundamental right in scripture that we are allowed to satisfy our cravings, particularly where scripture forbids a particular craving. Hey, nobody said life was fair.

I think I have stated elsewhere on this forum (might have been the old forum) that they think they have found a gene that predisposes a person to pedophilia.

You can imagine what a slippery slope that will create.

TK

I thought it was interesting that in the "Arguments for the Proposed Changes" section there was not one reference to God or scripture. There was one reference to the current disciplinary laws as being "un-Christlike".

My wife's cousin is the pastor of an "open and affirming" church. I haven't spoken to him about it out of respect for my wife and the family at large, but I hope to have the opportunity some day for a respectful dialog. If for no other reason than to let him know what I believe God's point of view on the matter is, so that my conscience will be clear before God.

look2jesus wrote:I thought it was interesting that in the "Arguments for the Proposed Changes" section there was not one reference to God or scripture. There was one reference to the current disciplinary laws as being "un-Christlike".

My wife's cousin is the pastor of an "open and affirming" church. I haven't spoken to him about it out of respect for my wife and the family at large, but I hope to have the opportunity some day for a respectful dialog. If for no other reason than to let him know what I believe God's point of view on the matter is, so that my conscience will be clear before God.

Not to criticize the UMC alone (I happen to now belong to a UMC church and it's certainly not unique to UMC) -- but, I have yet to find a UMC document or pastor who can provide an exegetical defense of female elder-pastors, and their paedobaptist argument is so superficial as to no doubt be obvious to them when they make it. At least the Reformed tend to have a robust (if flawed) argument for their paedobaptism.

I will we then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, the last time i visited a UM church it was cool, and the pastor was a woman. Probably past 50 years old.

Some of my relatives attend that church I would try to find out more about their "rules." I personally don't see women being pastors there as wrong.

Amyfree