British Methodists reject blessing of same-sex relationships
|
A UMNS photo by Kathleen LaCamera Conference representatives vote during the June 23-29 British Methodist Annual Conference.
|
Conference
representatives vote during the June 23-29 British Methodist Annual
Conference in Edinburgh, Scotland. During the seven-day conference, the
British Methodist Church decided against blessing same-sex relationships
which have been legal in Britain since 1994. The conference included
384 official voting members and 20 world church representatives. A UMNS
photo by Kathleen LaCamera. Photo #06733. Accompanies UMNS story #400.
6/29/06. |
June 29, 2006
By Kathleen LaCamera*
EDINBURGH, Scotland (UMNS) — The British Methodist Church will not bless same-sex relationships.
That decision followed a lengthy and passionate debate on the floor
of the denomination’s annual conference which met June 23-29 in
Edinburgh, Scotland.
The ruling disappoints those who hoped the church would allow
liturgical recognition of same-sex civil partnerships, legal in Britain
since December 2004. Civil partnerships give many of the rights and
privileges enjoyed by married couples - including survivor benefits,
pension rights and paternal responsibility for children - to same-sex
partners.
The ruling also puts British Methodist pastors in a similar position
to United Methodist clergy in places such as Massachusetts, California,
Vermont, New Jersey and Hawaii where the state, in varying degrees,
officially recognizes same-sex relationships but the church does not.
Pointing to a lack of consensus among British Methodists, many
representatives who voted against the prohibition had hoped the decision
would be left up to local congregations and pastors.
The Rev. Barbara Duchars, who leads a church in an area of Blackpool,
England, known as the “gay village” says she is not sure “where to go
from here.”
“It’s okay if I bless a farmer’s crops or a sailor’s boat. It’s okay
if a [same-sex] couple asks me to bless their home, but if they ask me
to bless them as a couple, I can’t,” Duchars told United Methodist News
Service following the debate.
She and others with similar views feel they will be forced to act against their convictions.
“There are many like me who feel their hands will be tied,” she said.
“What [gay and lesbian] people will get from this decision is that they
are not welcome in the Methodist Church, that they are not worthy of
God’s love or blessing.”
The culmination of two years of denomination-wide reflection, the
“Pilgrimage of Faith” report concluded that no blessing ceremony of any
kind should be undertaken by Methodist clergy on or off church property.
In addition, clergy should offer only “pastoral prayers” as opposed to “prearranged or formal prayers” to same-sex couples.
It is a distinction, District Chair Keith Davies told the conference,
which throws up “inconsistencies” and makes the boundaries between
acceptable and unacceptable pastoral practice difficult to discern.
During more than three hours of full plenary debate, both those
supporting and those opposing the move to prohibit same-sex blessings
voiced fears about people who will leave or split from the church over
this decision. When commenting on continuing compromise, one
representative observed, “we evangelicals don’t have much more to give.”
Others raised concerns that a prohibition of authorized liturgies
will force pastors to operate in a “clandestine way.” Still others
predicted the blessing of same-sex relationships would compromise
ecumenical relationships with other Christian traditions. Despite the
diverse range of opinion shared, representatives voted to adopt the
report in its entirety.
The Rev. Paul Smith, who is a member of the working party that
created the report, says it reflects a very accurate portrait of where
the church is now.
“We don’t bless gay partnerships ? we pray with everyone,” explained
Smith, who also leads the evangelical Methodist caucus group, Headway.
He confessed the working party struggled with the report. “We knew we
were talking about people, not theories.”
Fellow working-party member Cassandra Howes said the report is a
“best effort” and believes it has helped the church address divisive and
contentious issues in a less adversarial way. “We have given the church
a process to get here.”
Howes is the former head of OUTCOME, the British Methodist gay and
lesbian caucus. She knows some gay and lesbian people will leave the
church over this decision.
“It’s crucial to see the bigger picture. It’s a long game,” Howes
told United Methodist News Service. “I have to tell people who are hurt
and in pain because of these decisions, ?your pain isn’t enough to
change things.’ We have to work to change the culture of the church.”
But for some, the possibility that things may change in the future is little consolation for rejection in the present.
“I’m really gutted. This feels like a slap in the face,” commented
one gay pastor after the vote. Asking to remain anonymous, he said, “I
thought we were going forward, but it seems it’s one step forward and
two steps back. Now I only have the letter of the law and a lack of love
and grace to offer people. This sends the wrong message.”
Adoption of the report also means that in two years time, the British
Methodist Church Council will decide whether to reopen discussion of
what is known as the Derby Resolutions.
Created in 1993, the resolutions set out the British Methodist Church
position on issues of human sexuality. Often cited for containing
contradictory statements that both condemn and support gay and lesbian
people, the Derby Resolutions have been formative in many controversial
church policy positions regarding sexual practice and identity of both
Methodist lay people and clergy.
*LaCamera is a United Methodist News Service correspondent based in England.
News media contact: Linda Bloom, New York, (646) 369-3759 or newsdesk@umcom.org.
|