The United Methodist Church and Today's Republican Party

By Rev. Gilbert H. Caldwell

The United Methodist News Service story about the recent session of the Judicial Council is titled; "Council rejects resolutions on same-sex marriages." The first sentence in the story states; "United Methodist clergy cannot perform same-sex marriages, even in states where such unions are legal or the ceremonies are endorsed by a regional church group." This decision of the UMC Judicial Council causes me to ponder, "Is the Judicial Council as it responds to the consistent challenges to Book of Discipline language that forbids clergy, even clergy who express only a "willingness" to perform same-sex marriages and unions, having to respond to what has become Book of Discipline ideology rather than theology?"

I have pulled together from different sources, definitions of ideology and theology, I have found the following. IDEOLOGY; "a set of ideas, especially in politics...proposed by the dominant class of a society for all of the members of that society."  THEOLOGY; the study of the existence or attributes of God...how God relates to the world and especially human existence."

I have at various times in my life been a supporter of candidates and elected officials who are Republicans. Today, in a nation that values and depends upon ideas and perspectives from at least two or more political parties, we see the Republican Party becoming smaller and smaller, wielding less and less influence, because it is dominated by persons who insist on a narrow ideology; dominated by issues that become litmus tests and wedge issues. My fear is that our negative UMC stance on same-gender loving persons and their unions and marriages, has become an ideology for us that is not reflective of our theology. And, I believe that if we maintain our current General Conference legislative prohibitions, our fate as a denomination will be much like that of today's Republican Party.

Our Judicial Council is between the proverbial "rock and a hard place".They are bound to determine the meaning of what is in the Book of Discipline, rather than what ought be. Although we dared never say it outright, our Book of Discipline once declared that racial integration was "incompatible with Christian teaching". How else could we explain Book of Discipline language that legislated racial segregation in the denomination? Despite government mandated racial integration taking place at that time throughout society, Methodists were bound by the legislation of segregation in the Book of Discipline. Today, The United Methodist Church is restricted by negative language vis-a-vis unions and marriages for same-sex couples in our Book of Discipline, while states are taking seriously the language of equality in their Constitutions.

The 1968 General Conference called a special session of General Conference for 1970 to complete the task of merger. The Council of Bishops in 1968 requested that the Judicial Council rule that the special session ought not be held. The Judicial Council did not support the request of the Council of Bishops and the General Conference of 1970 was held.

The decision in Iowa (United Methodist Iowa?) to permit same-sex marriages following the actions of other states, makes me wish that a special session of General Conference could be held to determine how our denomination is going to respond to the growing number of states that have made legal, same-sex unions and marriages. What would it take for our current Council of Bishops to call for a special session of General Conference to reconsider our ban on ministry to and with same gender couples?

The Republican Party does not have to wait until 2012 to embrace the civil rights of same-sex couples to make legal their commitment to each other. Why must the United Methodist Church act as though the God of our beginnings, endings and transitions, visits our denomination, only in four-year cycles?

Now in retrospect, most United Methodists would admit that our Book of Discipline language that once legislated racial segregation was ideology-driven rather than theology-driven. The same is true of our current legislation/language about same-sex couples. It is obvious that God again is at work in the hearts and minds of those in state Courts and Legislatures as they affirm the rights of same-sex couples, as God was at work with persons in Courts and Legislatures on racial integration. Would that God could visit United Methodist decision makers, sooner rather than later.

Gilbert H. Caldwell
April 29, 2009

Here are the photographs from the Reconciling Witness at the Judicial Council Meetings in Denver.