Categories: uncategorized
Date: 27 April 2012 11:16:35
I'm currently in the process of putting together a book review I've been asked to do on "Queer Inclusion in the United Methodist Church" by Amanda Udis-Kessler which is an ethnographic study where fieldwork was centred around the UMC 2000 United Methodist General Conference. I had more interest than I might have done then when I opened an email and saw the United Methodists are meeting in the US at the moment for their General Conference and yet again the discussions are set to involve matters relating to human sexuality amongst other business.
A quick look at the agenda shows, however, that the conference has loads to discuss which goes way beyond this. However, a lot of that other important business will get lost or become invisible in the minds of most of the public I guess because of the way the sexuality debate is already and will probably continue to dominate the headlines relating to the conference. Based on reading Udis-Kessler's work, my own observations of how things have developed in this country and a wider reading of the associated literature I think this, unfortunately, is likely to harden resolve amongst the "anti's" and possibly antagonise the "don't knows".
I find it particularly sad that this issue has been debated at every UMC General Conference in my lifetime (there have been 40 years of discussion on this) and yet they seem to be no nearer a compromise solution. I contrast this with the UK experience where we do have a workable compromise which has been in place for nearly twenty years now and which has shown it is more than more words in recent months.
For those not familiar with the Methodist Church in Britain's "solution" it is the 1993 statement on Human Sexuality which was revisited and reaffirmed in 2005. As the debate on the proposed changes to the legal definition of marriage has progressed in recent months the Methodist Church in Britain has chosen to take an approach which is very much in the spirit of the statement and the compromise agreed by the Connexion.
The statement which has been produced on this matter and which is available via the Methodist website outlines firstly the official response to the Coalition For Marriage petition.
"The Methodist Church itself is not a sponsor of the campaign or the petition. This is primarily because we believe that the best way to engage with the proposals is through a reasoned response to the consultation. There are also concerns that some of the views evoked by the campaign do not affirm "the participation and ministry of lesbians and gay men in the Church" (statement on Human Sexuality, 1993). As such, for some people, this will be a contentious petition, even though many Christians will choose to support it"
It then goes on to explain how the denomination's response will be drawn up:
"The Methodist Council will be invited to appoint a small group (made up of three Faith and Order representatives and two Methodist Council representatives) to draw up a response on behalf of the Methodist Church. This will draw on existing Methodist understandings of marriage and human sexuality. It may also need to cover any potential implications for the law and practice affecting marriages conducted in Methodist churches."
This is a healthy approach which appears to contrast heavily with the UMC experience and makes me glad I live this side of the pond.
I think this approach of not supporting the Coalition for Marriage and appreciating that a direct and personal response to the consultation using the online response form is what we should all be doing before it closes on 14th June.
There are several reasons I urge you to do this:
Firstly: the C4M petition is making some inaccurate claims and drawing wild conclusions about the consequences of the proposed changes and are seeking to create a moral panic amongst the religious community. Responding using the response form may help lower the level of tension. In terms of the inaccurate claims and wild conclusions the important things to note are this legislation is not going to lead to descrimination against religious organisations or their members; religious organisations are not going to be forced into allowing same sex marriages against their will and it will allow an unequal playing field to be altered as there are small legal differences as the consultation document indicates. If you are unsure about the validity of the claims of C4M I urge you to read the consultation document yourself - which will clarify.
Secondly: The actual proposals are more complex and wider than C4M are seeking to show. The proposals would allow transgender people in civil partnerships or marriage to remain in the same sort of legal partnership when a gender recognition certificate was issued - rather than making them dissolve/ divorce and go through with the other one. Whilst the tick boxes relating to this - for some reason - are not open to everybody to tick I would ask you to support it within your comments.
This change in the law would directly help TOH and I - meaning that our commitment ceremony in July 2013 would be allowed to stand without having to be transferred. I know same sex opposite gender couples such as ourselves are rare as are same gender opposite sex couples, but we do exist - please support this aspect of the proposed change even if you cannot, having examined all the issues, support the proposal to allow same sex marriage.
Finally: Taking the time to respond in this way allows a more personal and nuanced response which allows you to explain fully what your reasons for support or concern are.