Unilaterally Redefining Marriage
Is The United Methodist Church having a “World Vision moment?” Recently, there was a big controversy in the news regarding World Vision’s attempt to change the qualifications of its employees. World Vision wanted to allow persons who are in a same-sex marriage to be employed at World Vision, which is an evangelical relief organization and one of the largest relief organizations in the world.
Of course, there was a huge backlash from evangelical donors to the organization, who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman only, and that World Vision’s decision to employ persons in same-sex marriages violated an evangelical understanding of marriage. World Vision reversed its decision after two days of hearing from many donors who said they were discontinuing their support for sponsored children due to the policy shift. (One can debate whether precipitously suspending support for ministry to children is the best way for a Christian to communicate one’s displeasure with an organization’s policies. It did make an impact, however.)
Many United Methodists do not realize that our own church policy agency has made a similar decision to expand the definition of marriage, contrary to United Methodist teaching. Last October, the General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA) voted to extend benefits to all employees of general church agencies who were in same-sex marriages or registered partnerships. They did so by expanding the definition of “spouse.” A spouse is now defined for church agency employees as “Opposite-sex and same-sex spouses, recognized by a state as being legally married to the employee; and Civil partners, either through a civil union or a comprehensive domestic partnership, recognized by a state as being the legal partner of an employee.”
This means that, as far as the church bureaucracy is concerned, marriage includes same-sex spouses, same-sex partners, and opposite-sex partners who are not married. This expanded definition of marriage contradicts the definition passed by General Conference, which states that “we affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman. … We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. (Discipline, ¶161B).”
The Judicial Council recognized this Discipline definition of marriage as the official teaching of The United Methodist Church, even though it appears in the Social Principles. They found it to be binding on the church (Judicial Council decision 1185). However, GCFA has unilaterally contradicted church teaching with its expanded definition of marriage.
It is important to note that, not only does the new policy define same-sex partners as “spouses,” it defines opposite-sex partners who are not married as “spouses.” In fact, the policy is so vague that, if any state recognizes polygamy or polyandry (having multiple wives or husbands), they would be covered by church benefits, as well.
Apportionment dollars are being used to subsidize the benefits we offer our employees and their family members. That means that apportionment dollars are being used to subsidize relationships that United Methodist Church teaching does not accept.
There are several things wrong with this policy decision:
- It adopts a policy that contradicts church teaching on the definition of marriage, not only violating the beliefs and values of church members (not to mention Scripture) but creating confusion by sending a mixed message about what United Methodists believe marriage is.
- It surrenders to the secular government the right to decide what constitutes marriage. Christians have always believed and taught that marriage is between one man and one woman, regardless of what the practices of a particular culture embraced. The wording of this policy is an unashamed capitulation to the changing mores of society, rather than standing firmly on the teachings of Scripture and 2,000 years of church teaching.
- It was adopted with little or no advance warning or broad consultation with the church leadership and membership. Essentially, a small group of twenty-one voting members (not all of whom approved the change) decided to change United Methodist policy on marriage.
- It was implemented immediately, with no opportunity for appeal. The GCFA has referred the matter to the Judicial Council for a ruling as to whether this new policy violates the Discipline in any way. However, GCFA chose not to suspend implementation of the policy pending judicial review and implemented it immediately, as of October 31, 2013. Such a process presents the church with a fait accompli, making it much more difficult to reverse the policy without causing harm to employees who obtained benefits under the new redefinition. It is much easier to decide not to extend benefits in the first place than it is to take away benefits that have already been offered.
I still hope that the Judicial Council will nullify the new policy at its April 23-25 meeting in Little Rock, Arkansas. I expect that the benefits will need to continue at least until the end of the year before being discontinued for the 2015 plan year.
However, if this policy change stands, it is a blatant example of our general church agencies being out of touch with the grass roots members of our church. It will only increase the gulf of mistrust that members and pastors have for general church agencies, and it will decrease the motivation of local churches to pay their world service apportionments, some of which are being used to subsidize relationships that are scripturally unwarranted.
Many United Methodists will find that this new policy violates their conscience and makes them unable to financially support a ministry that contradicts their values. Please pray this week for the Judicial Council, as they meet to make this decision.
3 thoughts on “Unilaterally Redefining Marriage”
And some people wonder why people in the pew don’t trust the bureaucracy. And why some of us pastors would often prefer our folks in the pew not know what’s going on “up there.” Because we’re the ones who then catch all the complaints… and whose members may leave the UMC.
Why aren’t members told about these decisions earlier? I know why, it is deviousness, the intent is to push an agenda forward without that bothersome input of those that help fund the outcome of the decisions. An elite group at the top who know what’s best for the rest of us. This may be the dealbreaker for me.
I totally disagree with this or any other decision that recognizes such relationships and I believe the UNC better do something very quickly about rescinding this policy!!