A UMNS Report
By Heather Hahn*
Chicago Area Bishop Sally Dyck announced her support on Thursday, Jan. 10, for a bill that would allow same-sex marriage in the State of Illinois.
United Methodist Bishop Sally Dyck speaks about the importance of “holy conversation” about contentious issues facing The United Methodist Church during its pre-General Conference news briefing in January 2012 at the Tampa Convention Center in Florida. A UMNS photo by Mike DuBose.
“I believe in the institution of marriage as the source of emotional and legal stability and security for families and communities,” wrote Dyck, whose area encompasses the Northern Illinois Annual (regional) Conference.
At the same time, she noted she would follow church law that prohibits United Methodist clergy from officiating at such unions.
“I can’t perform a same-sex marriage as a United Methodist clergy person and as the bishop I can’t give permission to any other clergy to do the same,” she wrote. “But just because I can’t provide the service of marriage to same-sex couples doesn’t mean that I should prevent people from being able to commit their lives to each other in the State of Illinois.”
Dyck’s letter is the most recent development in a debate that has been simmering inside the church and in society for decades.
The United Methodist Book of Discipline, the denomination’s law book, since 1972 has identified the practice of homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching.” Church law prohibits United Methodist churches from hosting and clergy from officiating at “ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions.”
The 2012 General Conference, when it met April 24-May 4 in Tampa, Fla., rejected efforts to change that language, including a proposal to say the church was in disagreement about homosexuality.
Dyck’s statement sparked immediate reaction from unofficial United Methodist caucuses that advocate on varying sides of the issue.
Good News, which advocates maintaining the denomination’s stance, released a statement expressing disapppointment and noting that the denomination’s Social Principles also endorses “laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
Leaders of Good News, based in The Woodlands, Texas, are among the signers of an open letter accusing retired Bishop Melvin G. Talbert of urging disobedience against the denomination’s stance on homosexuality. The letter calls on the Council of Bishops to to “publicly censure” Talbert for remarks he made May 4 outside General Conference, the denomination’s top lawmaking body, and that he reiterated during a June 16 sermon at the ordination service of the California-Pacific Conference. In those remarks, Talbert called on more than 1,100 clergy who have signed pledges to officiate at same-sex unions to “stand firm.”
The Rev. Thomas Lambrecht, vice president and general manager of Good News, said in an interview that he does not see Dyck’s statement as advocating disobedience “but rather disagreeing with the church.”
“That said, both Bishop Dyck and Bishop Talbert are engaging in activities that tend to undermine the unity of The United Methodist Church,” he said. ”Their public statements contradict the fairly strong global consensus within our church that marriage is a covenant ‘between a man and a woman.’ Thus, their statements and those of other bishops in the past expose publicly a deep division within the Council of Bishops and alienate United Methodists who support the church’s stated position.”
However, Chicago-based Reconciling Ministries Network, which advocates for greater inclusion of gays and lesbians in the church, hailed Dyck’s letter.
“As an organization of course, we wholly endorse what Bishop Dyck has said,” said Randall Miller, the group’s interim executive director, in an interview. “We think that celebrating the relationships of same-sex couples who are in loving relationships and formalizing that through marriage is critically important. We also wish Bishop Dyck could go further in terms of encouraging United Methodists to move forward in terms of embracing marriage for everyone. But we understand that she is a bishop and operates under the Book of Discipline and rules of The United Methodist Church.”
His group was still working on a statement in response on the afternoon of Jan. 10.
The church’s debate over human sexuality has intensified as more U.S. states and other nations legalize civil same-sex marriage.
On Nov. 6, voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved same-sex marriage while Minnesota voters rejected an amendment that would have defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman. It is still illegal for same-sex couples to marry in Minnesota.
So far, nine U.S. states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage. Some form of gay partnerships also are legal in more than 20 countries worlwide including South Africa, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2006.
The majority of African United Methodists have opposed changing the church’s stance on homosexuality.
Read Bishop Dyck’s full statement below:
To the Clergy and Members of the Northern Illinois Annual Conference.
January 10, 2013
Today the new General Assembly of the State of Illinois is expected to discuss and soon vote on the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act. It is expected that it will pass into law. I want to express my views on it and my support of it as law.
I believe in the institution of marriage as the source of emotional and legal stability and security for families and communities.
In May I will have been married for 37 years. I have many friends who are not presently married and have never married, but I believe most of them have wanted to find a lifelong relationship to which they are committed for spiritual, physical and emotional comfort and support.
And I have friends, acquaintances and former parishioners who have been in lifelong relationships with someone but have not been able to have their relationships recognized by the state or the church because they are in a same-sex relationship. In spite of all the same pressures and stresses that heterosexual couples face, they have managed to stay faithful and true to each other, providing stability and strength not only for their families but for their communities and churches.
Marriage also provides stability and security for me in a way that I usually take for granted especially as both my husband and I grow older. We just assume that we can be with each other in the emergency room or that if, God forbid, something happens to the other that we will be provided for through our combined resources. After all, we’ve built those resources together over the last almost 37 years.
But same-sex couples can’t assume the same benefits, not even the benefit of being with each other should there be an emergency or in critical last moments to hold the other’s hand…no one should have to be getting permission to be by a loved one’s side at a time like that but that is the reality for same-sex couples.
I believe in marriage because it also is the institution that best provides for the well-being of children. I believe that children need to have parents who have the emotional and legal benefits of marriage as well as parents who are active in their lives.
In addition to the benefits of marriage that I have described above, I also believe that the State of Illinois needs to be on the forefront (if #10 of 50 is the forefront) of providing for marriage equality in order to promote economic growth. People look for places to work and start businesses that will attract as many good workers, entrepreneurs and business people as possible and a marriage equality state can provide that added edge to the competitive economic market.
While The United Methodist Church holds that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, it also holds the teaching and a long tradition (albeit a struggle every inch of the way) of civil rights. Marriage equality is a civil rights issue; it provides for all what is afforded to some.
The marriage equality act in Illinois does not bind anyone who is licensed by the state to perform marriages to perform a marriage for a same-sex couple (as no one can bind us to perform a marriage for a heterosexual couple). In fact, even though I support this legislation, I can’t perform a same-sex marriage as a United Methodist clergy person and as the bishop I can’t give permission to any other clergy to do the same. But just because I can’t provide the service of marriage to same-sex couples doesn’t mean that I should prevent people from being able to commit their lives to each other in the State of Illinois.
Therefore, I believe it is to the benefit of our families, communities and the State of Illinois for the Marriage Equality Bill to become law in our state. Not all United Methodists will agree with my belief on marriage and they are entitled to their own belief. Because I believe in marriage, it’s my belief it will be a benefit for this law to pass.
Bishop Sally Dyck
Read the full statement from Good News
Good News is disappointed that Bishop Sally Dyck has chosen to advocate for the legislative approval of same-sex marriage in the state of Illinois. Since 2004, our church has said that we “support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” Indeed, our definition of marriage as a covenant “between a man and a woman” dates back to our denomination’s inception in 1972. This position received a 77% vote at General Conference in 2004 and still represents the one issue among all the sexuality-related issues that garners the broadest support across the church.
We respect Bishop Dyck and have worked well with her in the past in relating to the Unity Task Force of the Council of Bishops which she led. However, we believe that for Bishop Dyck to advocate a minority position that is at odds with the stated position of the church fosters disunity and deepens the sense of disconnect felt by many United Methodist members. In 2011, more than 14,000 United Methodists signed a letter to the Council of Bishops asking them to support the denomination’s position on same sex marriage. The Council issued a statement of support. Bishop Dyck’s advocacy flies in the face of the Council’s statement.
We share Bishop Dyck’s commitment to ensure the protection of the civil rights of all persons. However, there are other ways to ensure the civil rights of gay and lesbian persons without redefining the bedrock institution of marriage. We see no reason why the church should allow a secular, anthropocentric, hyper-sexualized Western culture to tell us what marriage is, rather than looking to the Scriptures and, with real concern for the rights of all, maintaining what God has revealed.
*Hahn is a multimedia news reporter for United Methodist News Service.
News media contact: Heather Hahn, Nashville, Tenn., (615) 742-5470 or newsdesk@umcom.org
61 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Tim McLemore
January 10, 2013 at 3:20 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Thank you for your fine work on this article, Heather, and for making this information available. Whether the news is gratifying for some (as in this case it is for me) or unpleasant and difficult (as it undoubtedly will be for others), you consistently remain thorough and even-handed in your work.
Rev. Lyle M. Miller, Sr.
January 10, 2013 at 3:30 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I am sorry to learn that this Bishop is publicaly announcing that she doesn’t believe in the wording in our discipline od the United Methodist Church. My question is simply how in the world did she get elected as a bishop or even an elder in the United Methodist Church? The only answer that I can come up wit is that she lied when she was asked if she accepted the United Methodist Discipline at her ordination. Why is it that our Boards of Ordained Ministry continue to recommend ordinatini for individuals who do not wupport the Discipline. We had an individual in our Troy Annual Conference a few years ago who went on public television supporting a same sex bill and later at ordination said she accepted the Disicipline when asked by the Bishop. Also, knowing that the Bishop asking the questions didn’t accept the Discipline is another issue entirely. When will the Judicial Council accept it responsibility and remove those who say one time they support our Discipline and later dedmostrate by their actions they never did.
Jay
January 12, 2013 at 11:10 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
The Discipline leaves room for people to disagree with it. Otherwise of would never change.
Clayton Childers
January 19, 2013 at 8:17 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Rev Miller – i think it is unreasonable to believe that clergy will not grow in their understanding of issues with time. Hopefully, God gives us greater insights as we move through life and face challenges to our faith. Hopefully, we learn. This has been my experience both as a pastor and a human being. Our United Methodist Book of Discipline and our Social Principles also evolve. You know as well as I do that these documents are updated at General Conference every four years in response to the issues of the day. Even Holy Scripture shows a progression in its understanding of issues. Marriage in the Old Testament allowed men to have numerous wives. The Bible says King David had hundreds of wives. Yet, in later times this understanding of marriage changed. The church came to favor monogamy over polygamy. In the New Testament, more than once, Jesus says “You have heard it said, but I say to you…..” The Bible also says that Jesus, himself, “grew in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God with and (human beings).” So I am all for learning, for growing in grace, and for receiving any new insights the Spirit of God has to offer. This is all part of the adventure of life and that is a beautiful thing.
Margie
January 19, 2013 at 9:37 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Amen!!!
meme
January 10, 2013 at 3:32 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
How can you openly agree with the institution of same-sex unions and in the same breath, say you will support the UMC rule forbidding such unions? By making such a statement you are giving strength to the aberration of same sex unions. By openly taking such a stand, you should not be a UMC clergy, let alone a UMC Bishop,
PEDRO SALAZAR
January 10, 2013 at 3:58 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
THE HONORABLE THING TO DO IS YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN THE DISCIPLINE AND THE SOCIAL PRINCIPLES WHETHER YOU ARE A BISHOP OR A PASTOR IS TO EXIT AND GO WHERE HOMOSEXUALISM IS ADVOCATED. THIS KIND OF LEADERSHIP IN OUR CHURCH IS ONE OF THE REASON WHY WE KEEP ON LOOSING MEMBERS EVERY YEAR. I AGREE WITH REV. MILLER,SR.COMMENT. REV P. O. SALAZAR
Kathleen L Reynolds
January 10, 2013 at 4:55 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I stand with the Bishop and believe we are losing membership due to the hatred, bigotry, unwillingness to join in Holy Conferencing and choosing to conduct themselves as if they were in a dog eat dog business world. It is possible to actually communicate intelligently if those speaking are spiritually mature. Communicating requires a person or group to listen at least half the time. The UMC is sitting with their fingers in their ears while yelling “I can’t here you lalalalalal!”
meme
January 11, 2013 at 8:37 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Listening does not mean agreeing.
Daniel Saavedra
January 10, 2013 at 8:41 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Once again we have a Bishop in the NIC! I stand with Bishop Sally Dyck!
Zach
January 14, 2013 at 8:55 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Thank’s Daniel, I am glad she is supportive of gays and equal rights. The book of discipline was written how long ago? It’s time we look at what is happening currently in our churches and the world and revise to make the united methodist grow and truly be united together.
Jessica
January 10, 2013 at 10:04 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I do not understand when it became possible for the church that nurtured me since birth to “vote” on or “Holy Conference” on whether or not some behavior is sinful, especially since the behavior has been defined as such since the beginning of time. There are certainly plenty of legal maneuvering other than legal marriage to give another person in your life property rights and decision making authority. This is about redefining what is and is not a sin, and none of you have that right. With this final weirdness, I believe that it is time for me to depart the UMC.
d
January 11, 2013 at 7:17 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
These persons think their sense of justice superior to the church.
They believe they are the enlightened whose position is superior even to the Word of God which they marginalize.
Tre
January 17, 2013 at 3:44 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Bye
Nicholas Rochester Jr
January 11, 2013 at 6:17 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Once again we have a Methodist Church Leader, in this case a bishop, who is hypocritical in her stance on same-sex marriage. She says she supports the Discipline of our church and she supports the institution of marriage; BUT, where does she stand on God’s teaching on marriage?
d
January 11, 2013 at 7:00 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
She is not alone.
GLADD did a peice on her.
http://media.nbcchicago.com/documents/Clergy+and+Faith+Leader+letter.pdf
Pastor Roger
January 11, 2013 at 7:02 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
As I pondered this post I was struck by something that we all need to be aware of, the realization that the UMNS is not impartial. The majority response posted within the story is provided by “Good News” the ultra conservative caucus of the United Methodist Church. I applaud the Bishop for her leadership and statement of her own personal views. As a licensed local pastor attending seminary I look forward to the day when our denomination truly becomes fully inclusive just as Christ was fully inclusive in his ministry. Like Bishop Dyck, I will also uphold the UM BoD until it is changed. This is not hypocritical because it allows freedom to express a persoanl understanding within our faith traditions. The challenge is to not allow the rhetoric of one side overpower the voices of those who continue to face oppression in whatever form it shows itself. Again, I support this statement and am praying for voices that have been silenced for too long to be heard.
Heather Hahn
January 11, 2013 at 8:32 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Thank you for your comment. I should have noted that Reconciling Ministries Network was still working on a statement yesterday afternoon, which is why there was not a lengthier response from the group. I hope to make that available when I receive it. There will be another follow-up story today.
Jim Buckhahn
January 11, 2013 at 7:04 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Christ was not “fully” inclusive. Yes He loves all of us unconditionally, but what did he say to the Adultress after no one would cast the first stone? He told her to go and sin no more. He did not say go and do what ever you want to do.
Taylor Loy
January 12, 2013 at 11:55 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Well put, Jim. As a new convert to Methodism I am encouraged by the Biblical adherence I see shown here.
Rick
January 11, 2013 at 7:11 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
UMC Bishops should not be publicly contradicting the Book of Discipline.
David Scudder
January 11, 2013 at 9:29 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Better publicly than privately.
George Olive
January 11, 2013 at 9:44 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I am a life-long Methodist/United Methodist. I have served the church as a layperson at the local, district, conference, and general church level. I finally responded to a call and entered the ministry as a local pastor at age 65. I love the denomination. Yet I am saddened beyond measure at the continuing conflict over the issue of homosexuality. I have a daughter who, after 10 years of marriage and the birth of two wonderful sons finally affirmed the true nature of her sexuality and is today in a committed relationship with a same-sex partner. I have read and studied and prayed about this, trying to find the sin in what my daughter did and is doing. Would that the church be as concerned about the totality of the importance of marriage, regardless of the gender of the couple, and focus on the issues of premarital cohabitation, extra-marital sex, marriage counseling to help avoid the need for divorce, spousal abuse, the neglect of children by parents too involved in their own lives and careers, and other factors that demean if not destroy the sanctity of marriage. Same-sex relationships, in or outside of marriage as allowed or disallowed by law, are not what is tearing apart the fabric of our society, nor, obviously, is heterasexual marriage the panacea to make it all well.
I will not leave the UMC because I am not allowed to officiate at my daughter’s marriage to her partner, but I would encourage to go where she can receive that recognition if that is what she chooses. Instead, I will, in my own small way, attempt to influence the church to change its stance. Just think – if the church had not been willing to reconsider its theological stance, Sally Dyck could not have been elected Bishop.
Rev. Margery Schleicher
January 11, 2013 at 2:44 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Amen!!!
Tre
January 18, 2013 at 1:16 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I whole-heartedly agree…AMEN!!!
DB
January 11, 2013 at 11:01 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
God bless Bishop Dyck, who is following God’s teachings where they conflict with those of the Methodist hierarchy. United Methodists are not Roman Catholics or Mormons who must obey all of the dictates of our hierarchy. One day all Christians will recognize that homophobia, sexism, and racism have no place in the kingdom of God. As the Bible teaches, “there is neither male nor female, there is no slave or free, there is no longer Jew or Greek, we are all one in Christ”. To God, same-sex and different-sex marriage are not only equal, but are exactly the same. God does not consider demographic characteristics such as sex or race to be relevant. Let’s pray that all Christians come to recognize that love and marriage are a gift from God, not something negative.
Theodore Hastings
January 11, 2013 at 11:30 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
The issue is really easily solved. Read the Bible. We are to study it, understand it, believe it and live it. It makes little difference what society, or individuals, want. The Word of God is just that. The Book of Discipline cannot change it, nor can mans laws. I don’t see anyplace in the Bible that tells us to hate homosexuals, it DOES say the homosexuality, the same as fornication, is a sin. We would not exist today as christians if Christ, or Paul or Peter or any of those who started the church, had taken the attitude that ” I could be happier, and live longer, if I just tried to get along” or “I think the Romans are right, there are many gods”.
If a man ran with prostitutes and was happy to get what he wanted, sex, and they would be happy to get what they want, money, would you also accept that?
As I said at the beginning, read the Bible, exegetically please, and live it as Christ told us to.
Let us all pray for the Bishop, and others.
David
January 11, 2013 at 12:11 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I would be interested in results of your study and understanding of Matthew 19:9 and how this is lived out by many of our ordained clergy. It seems that, compared to the church’s stance on homosexuality, we’re being a little hypocritical in allowing one but not the other.
Theodore Hastings
January 11, 2013 at 2:43 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Matthew 19:9 speaks for itself, however, we are not on the subject of divorce but homosexuality. I think a discussion on this, or any subject, should be completed prior to starting a new subject. I don’t think that spreading the guilt of other sins removes the guilt af any other sin.
Bishop Dyck would seem to be approving, or accepting, same sex marriage. Of the clergy I personnally know, very few are divorced, and those who are council against it, as they should.
David
January 11, 2013 at 4:31 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I was merely pointing out the different treatment the church gives to two things identified as sinful – homosexual practice and adultery. Why the difference? It is a factor in the way people line up, for or against, the Discipline on homosexuality. Jesus speaks only to divorce and adultery. You state that you know very few divorced clergy. To hazard a guess, you probably know very few LGBT people. I know and have known a few LGBTs as well as divorced and remarrieds, some of which are clergy. Thank you for entering the discussion — we need to have more people do so.
Pasator Mark
January 11, 2013 at 2:59 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I am a UMC Pastor/Elder who follows the prescription of Matthew 19:9. I am not constrained by UMC teachings to just marry any heterosexual couple regardless of their past or present situations. That is one of the reasons for premarital counseling. I will not marry persons of differing faiths (i.e. Hindu and Christian) because I officiate over a Christian marriage as defined by the scriptures (the concept of being equally yoked) and the current church Discipline. I will not marry a couple where abuse is evident and present. I will not marry a couple if they are cohabitating. If they want God’s blessing on their marriage, they must repent, seek forgiveness, and stop cohabitating before I will marry them. EVERY couple I have counseled this way (over 20) in premarital preparation – save one – has heeded Biblical teaching and repented. Furthermore, I have been supported in this by my churches, DS’s, and more than one Bishop in my beliefs about marriage. Sally Dyck should be removed as a Bishop and surrender her orders (as should every other Bishop who believes as she does – especially Bishop Talbert). Also, every so called local pastor or seminary student who lies at their commissioning or ordination should be ashamed at their lack of integrity and be compelled to give back their orders when they are found to violate those vows. Here are portions of the questions asked to each Ordinand where a TRUTHFUL affirmative is needed to be ordained:
“Are you persuaded that the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments contain all things necessary for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, and are the unique and authoritative standard for the church’s faith and life? Will you be faithful in prayer, in the study of the Holy Scriptures, and with the help of the Holy Spirit continually rekindle the gift of God that is in you? Will you do your best to pattern your life in accordance with the teachings of Christ? Will you be loyal to The United Methodist Church accepting its order, liturgy, doctrine, and discipline, committing yourself to be accountable with those serving with you, and to the bishop and those who are appointed to supervise your ministry? The presiding Bishop then says: May God, who has given you the will to do these things, give you grace to perform them that the work begun in you may be brought to perfection. Amen.”
When they openly and purposefully LIE when they say they ACCEPT the polity and Discipline of the UMC, they should not be ordained because of the falsehood in and the lack of integrity of the vows they are kneeling to take before God, the Bishop, and the United Methodist Church members present at their ordination. Likewise, a Bishop should have the integrity to refuse to participate or preside in the ordination service if their faith and heart are not in what they are doing before God. I can not count the UM church members I know that have left our church and gone to more conservative communions because of our trying to accept homosexuality as God-given.
d
January 11, 2013 at 12:17 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
If ones convictions are against the stand thechurch takes they can no longer serve the church as promised. There is a conflict of interest. To go public with such a statement in any other corporation would be considered a breach of the agency relationship and reason for immediate dismissal.
Bishops are agents of the church.
Christian freedom does not extend to discretiting scripture, embracing sin acts, discrediting doctrine or the freedom to encourage what is discouraged
Hiding behind the right to agree to disagree only goes so far.
d
January 11, 2013 at 12:36 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I was reading Luther the other day and think this can shed a little light.
Now the name of God is profaned by us either in words or in works. (For whatever we do upon the earth must be either words or works, speech or act.) In the first place, then, it is profaned when men preach, teach, and speak in the name of God what is false and misleading, so that His name must serve to adorn and to find a market for falsehood. That is, indeed, the greatest profanation and dishonor of the divine name. Furthermore, also when men, by swearing, cursing, conjuring, etc., grossly abuse the holy name as a cloak for their shame. In the second place also by an openly wicked life and works, when those who are called Christians and the people of God are adulterers, drunkards, misers, envious, and slanderers. Here again must the name of God come to shame and be profaned because of us. For just as it is a shame and disgrace to a natural father to have a bad perverse child that opposes him in words and deeds, so that on its account he suffers contempt and reproach, so also it brings dishonor upon God if we who are called by His name and have all manner of goods from Him teach, speak, and live in any other manner except as godly and heavenly children, so that people say of us that we must be not God’s, but the devil’s children.
Jim Schott
January 11, 2013 at 12:49 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Can a bishop be fired or impeached? Previous opinions allude to that, but is there a way? Do we as laity have a say at all? I don’t wonder any longer why the UMC is losing members and support. It seems the only way to protest is to withhold money or leave the church. Maybe I’ll become a Baptist.
Douglas W. Rettig
January 11, 2013 at 1:06 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
i wonder if Bishop Dyck realizes the unintended consequences that come when people support homosexual marriage? When you look at the legal marriage licenses in Rock Island county, in Illinois, or Scott county in Iowa, or Mercer county in Illinois, the Quad Cities area, you can see the unintended consequences. No longer does a county marriage licenses say bride and groom. Instead, it may say Party A and Party B, as in Scott county; or in Rock Island county Applicant 1 and Applicant 2; or in Mercer county Applicant A and Appicant B. The femal bride and the male groom are legally missing. Gone is he. Gone is she. He and she is replaced by it, such as an applicant or a participant. He and she have been turned into an it, legally, a lifeless thing, gender neutral. Male and female are gone. Only it remains, legally. Think what your daughter or son, your granddaughter or grandson can look forward to, namely in marriage legally being changed into an it. And pasters can legally announce at the marriage ceremony, “I now present to you Applicant A and Applicant B, or Party A and Party B.” Is this really what Bishop Dyck supports?
h
January 11, 2013 at 2:10 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Of course that’s not really what Bishop Dyck supports, and it’s pretty ridiculous to make such an argument. As a married woman, I’d say the missing language of “bride” and “groom” is a small price to pay for marriage equality for my LGBTQ brothers and sisters. While being a symbol, a marriage license is a piece of paper, and we’re talking about people here.
Michael
January 11, 2013 at 2:58 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
First of I would like to say I dont really care if gays get marriage, however, churches should not be the ones doing it, because it is not biblical, let the secular world handle it.
Even the Dalai Lama of Tibetan Buddhism interprets sexual misconduct to any form of sex that can not lead to procreation,(basically it must involve the capability of gametes from both genders to meet). However, the Dalai Lama supports human rights for all, “regardless of sexual orientation.
Now this a quote form above: “…But we understand that she is a bishop and operates under the Book of Discipline and rules of The United Methodist Church.”
Forget the Book of Discipline and rules of The UMD, what about the Bible. They wouldn’t be a Church if they didnt follow the Bible. I dont understand any church that throws out the Bible because if one throws that out, then everything we understand about Christ is also thrown out and therefore they are not participant Christians, or even followers of YHWH(God) at that point. In Matthew19:3-10 Jesus talks about marriage. He quotes Gen2:24(marriage is between Man and Woman) at the beginning, then he even goes on to say that divorce is a sin, and it was only allowed in Mosiac Law because of human’s hard hearts. Jesus did have a stance on marriage. With that being said Jesus didnt hate on gays or any sinners, he ministered to them, & healed them of infirmities. In some cases, many of their illnesses were caused by sin and that is why after healing them sometimes he would say things like “your sins are forgiven” (Matt 9:1-8), “go and sin no more”(John8:1-12), or “sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you” (John5:1-14). Jesus gave us a new covenant where Grace is more abundant, but grace was not given to carelessly sin, but to be freedom from sin. (Romans5:20-21, Romans 6:1-23) Sin causes death, and God doesnt want Satan to kill us with our sins, that is why he sent Christ, so that with power of the Holy Spirit, delivered by Christ, we are free from sin. Those who are unsaved cannot help but sin, because it is in their nature because Adam’s sin became genetic (Romans5:12-17). However Jesus made it so that we can be born again. (John3:20) Christ set an example with his disciples he never told them to go do what they wanted to do, he told them to come and follow his way.(Mat4:19) The bible teaches His way. Furthermore the bible says the wages of Sin is Death. So it would misrepresent God, who sent Jesus to give us a more abundant life, to encourage someone to sin which would lead to death, and Satan is the one wants humans to die(John10:10). The bible is clear on homosexuality being sin.(Lev18:22&20:13, Rom1:26-28, 1Tim1:10, & 1Cor9:6) Temptation is not sin however, only acting on it is. Which means the attraction is not sin, so if homosexuals live as eunuchs (celibacy) as Christ mentions in Matthew 19:11-12 then they are not in sin. Remember Grace is freedom FROM sin, NOT freedom TO sin. (Romans5:20-21, Romans 6:1-23)
Pastor Mark
January 11, 2013 at 3:08 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
A marriage license is the legal but profane requirement that is but a shadow of the reality of divinely ordained marriage of two of God’s creatures – made male and female for each other. When Jesus spoke of marriage in the context of whether divorce is proper, Christ said in Mark 10:6ff “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife. And the two of them shall be one flesh. So then they are no longer two, but one flesh.”
Stewart
January 11, 2013 at 4:47 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Seeing how this article brings up our social principles. it’s a shame when our social principles are about a United Nation Document and not the Bible. There are groups out there who are trying to destroy the gospel and teach another and they are sheep in Wolves clothing.
Pastor al
January 11, 2013 at 6:14 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I am appalled by any clergy speaking up for homosexuality. Sure, a lot of things we silly humans do are sins, but do we have to help one another sin? Homosexuality should not be about being a sin no worse than another, it should be about sin, and the church’s stand concerning sin. I was always taught that sin can be defined as something that separates us from God, and I do believe that God has spoken about homosexuality. Sodom is one place, and then during the time of Judges the tribe of Benjamin had the same problem and God dealt with them. Let’s take our own stand on homosexuality and look at what God thinks about it, what we think really has no bearing on it, unless we agree to help others sin, and then God has a special place for teachers who lead others astray. Even if they are a Methodist bishop
Terry Meyer
January 11, 2013 at 7:07 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I believe that for Bishop Dyck to advocate a position that is at odds with the stated position of the church causes comtinued disunity and disconnect with many United Methodist members that have honored our position.
S. Carter
January 11, 2013 at 8:08 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Sue
I believe the question is not only whether same sex marriage goes against our United Methodist teachings but if it goes against Gods teaching as stated in the Bible. It does! This person should not a a Bishop. If homosexuals want to attend our churches they should be allowed to but we should not condone their behavior by performing a marriage ceremony that goes against our church’es standing and against the Bible’s teaching.
Taylor Loy
January 12, 2013 at 11:58 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Listen here folks, if you really beleive that opposition to homosexuality means we are “homophobic” then you likewise beleive that the apostle Paul was a homophobe. Along with our God and Father who ordered that gays be stoned to death. Praise God for His grace that forgiveness may be offered to sinners of all sexual orientations.
h
January 12, 2013 at 12:59 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
This issue is a lot more complicated than we often make it. People talk about “biblical marriage” and how plain scripture is in depicting homosexuality. For one, there is not just one view of marriage in the bible. Also, simply to talk about a biblical view of homosexuality is silly because our modern conception of homosexuality is much different than the ancient near-east, and our translations are often misleading. I won’t go into detail here because I’m not sure how helpful that would be. I am not a biblical literalist, so I suppose it’s easier for me to consider those things. As an educated person of faith, I see this issue as a justice issue, and I do not believe God condemns homosexuality. And yes, that is after a lot of prayer, discernment, and study of scripture. I simply think we have misunderstood for far too long.
On another note, I recognize that our denomination, like many others, is divided on this issue. Just because we have an “official” stance does not mean that we all have to agree or accept that stance. I am a United Methodist, and yet I disagree on this issue. For Bishop Dyck to make this statement doesn’t cause disunity in the church–it already exists. Who knows what the future of our denomination might be- May God be our guide.
Margery Schleicher
January 12, 2013 at 1:20 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Amen, h!
Taylor Loy
January 12, 2013 at 1:28 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
So how do you explain Romans 1? I can understand finagling over the Greek in 1 Tim 1:10 and Cor 6:9, but never heard a reasonable argument for how Romans 1 fits into any cultural or linguistic acceptance of homosexuality, something which God has forbidden from the beginning of time. Never has God ever revealed any hint of acceptance for homosexuality anywhere in Scripture. Ever. No church has at any time before the modern age read anything but completely condemnation for homosexuality.
David
January 12, 2013 at 2:13 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I totally agree with “h”. This is my belief exactly. I am also a life long United Methodist and am not a literalist and have invested much study, prayer. This along with my experience and reason leads me to believe as I do. The Old Testament treats this and other issues such as marriage, polygamy and incest in varying ways; therefore, it offers no help.
Taylor Loy
January 12, 2013 at 2:19 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
So, let me get this straight: you do not consider the Old Testament to be a valid source in this debate and, we also are saying that the New Testament cannot be taken literally… So just exactly what is the point of the Bible again?
David
January 13, 2013 at 3:04 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I think if you read the comment of “h” above with which I said I’m in agreement, I believe your questions would be answered. I read and study the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and find strength in much of what is written there. Are you questioning my “no help” statement concering the Old Testament based the entirety of the OT or just based on your reliance on a single scripture verse, namely Leviticus 18:22? Are you similarly insistent on taking Leviticus 25:44 literally and applying it to today’s society? Different times, different cultures, etc. I know that we come from different approaches, United Methodist and Assembly of God; however, we can still profit from discussing our views and I thank you for your comments. God bless.
Taylor Loy
January 13, 2013 at 3:35 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
First, please forgive my frustration. It is not at meant to be directed at you, but I am grieved in the spirit.
I am a United Methodist. How do you say I am AG? Anyway, I am arguing quite simply that something prohibited in the OT that is reaffirmed (Romans 1, 1 Cor 6:9, and 1 Tim 1:10) in the NT can NOT be said to be permitted. To act on homosexual desires is a sin and to say it is not, to disagree with historic Christian teaching, then you had better have a lot more to say than “The Old Testament treats this and other issues such as marriage, polygamy and incest in varying ways; therefore, it offers no help.”… and “am not a literalist.” Either we accept the Bible as true and explain how on earth we can show that the Bible embraces something which it does not, then Christianity is going to lose its message of salvation. Cheapen what the Word says and people will not respect it any longer.
I am not a Republican. I am not a fundamentalist. I do support legal equality for gays. However, we can support civil rights for gay couples and STILL uphold the very real and apparent statements in the verses I have referenced above that homosexual conduct is without question a sin, just as any other sexual sin.
Again, the Greek in 1 Tim 1:10 or 1 Cor 6:9 we could debate all day (even though the vast majority of scholars understand it refers to ANY homosexual act, but Romans 1 I’ve never heard any sensible refutation of.
My heart is troubled because I deeply desire that the whole world know that we do not desire homosexuals to suffer, to be ostracized from society, or to not have equal protection under the law. I am even more grieved, however, when I see that my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ would forgo our duty, to rightly interpret Scripture and to lead people to repentance, all for showing the world we love them. Love is not saying all is well. Love is living out the Gospel, admonishing, in love, all:
Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.
(Revelation 3:19-20 ESV)
From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
(Matthew 4:17 ESV)
The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
(Acts 17:30-31 ESV)
No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
(Luke 13:3 ESV)
I do not write these things to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children.
(1 Corinthians 4:14 ESV)
So they went out and proclaimed that people should repent.
(Mark 6:12 ESV)
Regarding 1 Tim 1:10:
1 Tim. 1:10 The sexually immoral violate Ex. 20:14, but the term includes more than just adultery; Greek pornos refers to one who practices any sexual conduct contrary to God’s moral law. men who practice homosexuality. The Greek noun arsenokoitēs refers to males who engage in homosexual acts and echoes the Septuagint wording of Lev. 18:22; 20:13. Though some have argued that only certain kinds of homosexual conduct are in view (such as homosexual prostitution or pedophilia or unfaithful relationships or conduct by people who do not naturally have homosexual desires), there is no evidence in the words of the text, the context, or in evidence from the ancient world to prove that Paul was referring to anything other than all kinds of homosexual conduct.
David
January 13, 2013 at 3:52 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Taylor, I apologize if I mischaracterized you. I got the AOG connection from your Facebook page. I clicked on your name above one of your comments and it took me to the FB page. According to your timeline, you were baptized in 2008 into AOG. Again, I aologize if this is erroneous.
Florence
January 13, 2013 at 11:25 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Thank God for our new bishop, Sally Dyck, and for the NI Conference. Having her as our conference leader may keep me in the UMC for a few more years even though the UMC as a world organization maintains its opposition to equality for our GLBT relatives and friends. I won’t be satisfied until ALL persons are equal before the law, and I know they are equal before God already.
d
January 13, 2013 at 1:49 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
The problem lies with conflict of interest, double mindedness , breach of contract and heart condition when a Bishop or persons of authority ,with intent and foreknowledge, go through the motions of loyalty to the church but say and believe in their heart other wise.
Conflict of interest.
“No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” Luke 16:13
Double -minded
I hate the double-minded, But I love Your law. Psalms119:113
he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.
Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
James 1 & NKJ
‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
Matthew 15
When there is division isn’t it scripture that has to be the ultimate authority?
Taylor Loy
January 13, 2013 at 3:41 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Very well-thought out verses, D. God bless
milchap
January 13, 2013 at 3:15 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Once again, someone takes a stance which is against the intent of the Discipline and the letter of Scripture and many American Methodists applaud her for her stance. I wonder what the response will be when the rest of the United Methodists who live beyond the American borders read her remarks?
Maybe it is about time to elect bishops at general conference, so that a true world-view may be elicited.
Taylor Loy
January 13, 2013 at 4:05 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
David, I have always been Wesleyan, as AG is strictly Wesleyan. I am far more open to the gifts of the Holy Spirit than the vast majority of Western Christians. I ADORE traditional worship. The ONLY thing that kept me from joining the UMC as opposed to AG or Nazarene was the wing of the UMC that I believe ignores Scripture in place of social convenience. I have found my way after years of longing and dissatisfaction within AG (due to the overemphasis on tongues and far-right social policies) to the UMC. I have NEVER been happier in my life. I look forward to church EVERY SINGLE DAY. But I would give up this joy if it meant I would send a signal that I will stand with Christ and the gospel. That’s why this debate matters to me. It isn’t about gay marriage. It’s about the Bible and message of salvation we, the light of the earth, must shine out to the world. God bless you and forgive any rudeness I may have shown. I do sincerely love all of you, my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Mike McKnight
January 13, 2013 at 10:47 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I have been a United Methodist pastor for 37 years and am thankful that our church continues to uphold scripture which states that homosexuality is a sin. Our Discipline states ministers are not to take part in same sex marriages. Bishops, pastors, etc. who cannot accept this belief should find another place where their views would be honored. I assure you that we will lose more pastors and members when we accept this sinful conduct than the few bishops and clergy who leave. Look at the other denominations who have chosen to accept homosexuality as “o.k.” and are now watching their people go elsewhere.
Rod Tornquist
January 15, 2013 at 3:17 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Romans 1:24-27 is clearly the clinching argument concerning what scripture has to say about homosexuality, as Taylor Loy points out. N. T. Wright says, in his commentary on Romans in The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary “The underlying logic seems to be as follows. Those who worship the true God are, as Paul says elsewhere, renewed according to the divine image (Col 3:10). When this worship is exchanged for the worship of other gods, the result will be that this humanness, this image-bearing quality, is correspondingly distorted. Paul may suppose that in Genesis 1 it is male and female together that compose the image of God; or he may simply be taking it for granted that heterosexual intercourse is obviously the creator’s intention for genital activity.l Either way, his point is that homosexual behavior is a distortion of the creator’s design and that such practices are evidence, not of the intention of any specific individual to indulge in such practice for its own sake, but of the tendency within an entire society for humanness to fracture when gods other than the true one are being worshiped.”
Paul Achtemeier concurs with N. T. Wright in his commentary in the Interpretation Series on Romans 1:24ff; “The violation of the created order in human sexuality is therefore, as Paul understands it, an outgrowth of the violation of the created order, a violation whose root lies in idolatry. For Paul, the kind of life he describes, ‘women exchanged natural relations for unnatural…… men committing shameless acts with men,’ cannot be understood as an alternate life-style, somehow also acceptable to God. It is, as Paul understand it, a sign of one of the forms God’s wrath takes when he allows us free reign to continue in our abuse of creation and in our abuse of one another as creatures. Such conduct may not be celebrated as another expression of God’s grace. It is clearly portrayed here as a sign of God’s wrath.”
Elsie Gauley Vega
January 17, 2013 at 3:17 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
For application forms for a marriage license to refer to Person A and Person B DOES NOT
turn the applicants into “it”, or make them genderless; but obviously the officials could have asked for some help from some grammarians!!!!! I would have said, “Applicant A and Applicant B.” The two people do not need to be thought of as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’…..no matter their gender, they are spouses.
Oh, please, do any of you really want to return to “what marriage has always been”?????
Do you want to buy or sell someone’s daughters? Do you want to have multiple wives and a bunch of concubines besides?????? Oh, ‘marriage as it has always been’….what joy that was.
And have you really read the Bible? How did you miss the part showing Jonathon removing all his clothing in front of David? History teaches me that people didn’t wear underpants in those days. And even if they did, he removed ALL his clothing. If this scene showed a boy and a girl, you would clearly understand this to mean “Take me, I’m yours.” It is two men, and seems to mean the same thing!!!! Sure, David got married–many times–he was king and had to produce an heir. But it does not look like he ever found true happiness with any of those women.
Why would the writers of scripture have included that intimate scene with J and D unless they felt a need to be honest and acknowledge that always, everywhere some of God’s sons and daughters have been born with same-gender orientation?????????
Most United Methodists know that some of our best preachers, musicians, hymn writers, S.S.
Teachers, professors, scholars, financial backers, faithful workers have been gay men and lesbians. We have among us, too, intersected and transgender persons.
Flowers come in all colors. Horses and trees come in all sizes. etc. etc. Those of you who are up-tight over God’s love of diversity need to pause and stop resisting God’s delight in diversity. Preachers often mention that people have different gifts. Many preachers know that not everyone is born with opposite-gender sexual orientation. I never asked, “God, why did You make me this way?” I knew that God is Creator, Source of Truth and Light and Love.
So, I grew and matured and am the lesbian God made me. To do otherwise would be a slap in God’s face.
Don’t talke to me about “it’s not natural.” Psycholgist, zoo keepers, scientists who study birds and other land and sea animals can tell us what is ‘natural’ in ‘nature.’ Jesus said He’s send Holy Spirit to teach us what He didn’t have time to teach us. Please listen to Holy Spirit. Don’t just “love Jesus” but try to be as inclusive as He was!!!!!!!!! Work to clean up official church policy. Stop breaking the hearts of LGBT persons and the relatives and friends who love them. The scripture I read says we are to love (include) as we would be loved (included).
Loraine Isenberger
January 18, 2013 at 1:48 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I have been disappointed in my church because of their response to the homosexuality ‘problem’. I thought we were to accept people because all people are acceptable. Yet, I have seen for years that people like my brother have been systematically ignored because of their preferences, as have the homeless because of their lack of funds…….etc. Open minds? Where are they. Only pulled out for the TV ads? Now, if the discipline says no same sex marriages, then change it. We certainly spend enough time on others things-and then ignore in our churches. Lets leave the politics to the politicians and stick to the Religious angle of our church. When we show our selves to be sincere to the younger generation they will catch on-but that takes acceptance of all-not just whomever happens to be on the list for today. Why are we not trying to help our brothers and sisters in the Middle East who are being killed and persecuted? Isn’t that more down our line?
Taylor Loy
January 18, 2013 at 3:21 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
First of all, I would say that the only thing that this new generation needs is a more comprehensive understanding of the word of God. We do not change doctrine, nor affirm something which is sinful, nor oppose anything which is good, only to please the new generation of Christians. The only thing that this new generation of people needs is the word of God. And if we decide to change that then we deserve to lose our mantle as God’s chosen generation.
There are some people who are prejudiced. That is a fact. However, you do not combat prejudice or bigotry with saying that something is okay which is clearly and obviously sinful based upon the word. This is not about protecting people’s feelings. It is about upholding God’s word, our soul of authority on earth.
And as far as bringing the gospel to the Middle East is concerned, that will be only further complicated when our church brings the gospel to people who wholeheartedly and rightly so oppose homosexuality. They will not listen because we have forsook the word of God for the passions and convenience of our modern Christianity.
And I think that fair and equal “open minds” ought to consider that just maybe the Bible isn’t kidding when it says that homosexuality is a sin in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Fair?