Methodists Reject Motion on Homosexuality (UPDATED)

from Stand Firm by David Fischler 

According to Mark Tooley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy:

This morning at about 10 am the United Methodist General Conference defeated a motion from Kansas minister Adam Hamilton to acknowledge that United Methodists disagree on homosexuality. The motion, co-originated with Ohio minister Mike Slaughter, was defeated by about 53 percent to 47 percent.

Nearly 30 percent of delegates are from Africa, where United Methodism is solidly conservative theologically. Nearly 10 percent come from elsewhere overseas, mostly Europe and the Philippines. Of the 60 percent of delegates who are from the U.S., about one-third are believed to be evangelical. The vote revealed a majority coalition of Africans, U.S. evangelicals, and some other overseas delegates.

The Adam Hamilton motion was considered the strongest attempt to dilute the United Methodist Church’s current stance that homosexual practice is “incompatible with Christian teaching.” The church prohibits same-sex unions and precludes actively homosexual clergy, expecting all clergy to be celibate if single and monogamous if in a marriage between man and woman. Legislative committees last week recommended retaining these current stances.

Almost certainly, after the defeat of Hamilton’s motion, the full General Conference will reaffirm its current teachings on marriage, sexual ethics and homosexuality. The growth of United Methodism in Africa, where there are now over 4 million church members, has helped to ensure that the denomination has not followed other U.S. denominations in liberalizing their sexual standards.

Unfortunately, Mark doesn’t include a text for the motion, or a link, so I’m not sure exactly what this is about (and the United Methodist General Conference web site is awful and unhelpful). As soon as I find out I’ll post it. In any case, this bodes well for the next couple of days worth of action.

UPDATE: According to Art McClanahan, the gay rights forces demonstrated their contempt for democracy as well as their opponents by again disrupting the Conference:

Singing interrupted the resumption of the General Conference on Thursday morning.  Following the rejection of a compromise proposal to acknowledge that the Church is divided in it’s mind on homosexuality and a proposed amendment to paragraph 161.F of the Book of Discipline, supporters of a more inclusive stance remained on the floor of the assembly.  They asked the question, in song, “What does the Lord require of you?”

Bishop Mike Coyner, presiding officer for the second half of the morning, closed the session early because of the continuing witness.

Yeah, Mr. McClanahan probably wouldn’t agree with my characterization of the “continuing witness,” i.e., expression of sore loserdom.

UPDATE: Mr. McClanahan has posted the motion. It would replace the last paragraph of the section of the United Methodist Social Principles that deals with human sexuality. This is the current paragraph:

We affirm that all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of God. All persons need the ministry of the Church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We 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. 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 is what would have replaced it:

Homosexuality continues to divide our society and the church. All in the United Methodist Church affirm that homosexual persons are people of sacred worth and all are welcome in our churches, but we disagree as a people regarding whether homosexual practices is contrary to the will of God.
The Bible is our primary text for discerning God’s will. We read and interpret it by the light of the Spirit’s witness, with the help of the thoughtful reflections of Christians throughout the centuries and assisted by our understanding of history, culture, and science.

The majority view through the history of the church is that the scriptures teach that same-sex sexual intimacy is contrary to the will of God. This view is rooted in several passages from both the Old and New Testament.

A significant minority of our church views the scriptures that speak to same-sex intimacy as reflecting the understanding, values, historical circumstances and sexual ethics of the period in which the scriptures were written, and therefore believe these passages do not reflect the timeless will of God. They read the scriptures related to same-sex intimacy in the same way that they read the Bible’s passages on polygamy, concubinage, slavery and the role of women in the church.

United Methodists will continue to struggle with this issue in the years ahead as a growing number of young adults identify today with what is the minority view. The majority view of the General Conference, and thus the official position of the church, continues to hold out that same-sex intimacy is not God’s will. We recognize, however, that many faithful United Methodists disagree with this view.

It is likely that this issue will continue to be a source of conflict within the church. We have a choice: We can divide, or we can commit to disagree with compassion, grace, and love, while continuing to seek to understand the concerns of the other. Given these options, schism or respectful co-existence, we choose the latter.

We commit to disagree with respect and love, we commit to love all persons and above all, we pledge to seek God’s will. With regard to homosexuality, as with so many other issues, United Methodists adopt the attitude of John Wesley who once said, “Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt, we may.”

UPDATE: The information I saw about the motion was incorrect, or at least incomplete. I’ve deleted the incorrect version, and replaced it with the correct one. (Hat tip: ABQ Methodist.)