Today competing forces demonstrated outside the U.S. Supreme Court while the justices heard oral arguments relating to same-sex marriage. Advocates for same-sex marriage were mostly on the court side of the street, while pro-traditional marriage advocates were more on the U.S. Capitol side. Pro-same sex advocates were busily dashing in and out of the United Methodist Building, which is owned by and houses the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society. One reporter told me that pro-same sex forces were hosting their media interviews inside. I saw Welton Gaddy, long-time leader of the liberal Interfaith Alliance, go in.
The United Methodist Building, besides housing United Methodism’s lobby office, also rents space to dozens of other liberal religious advocacy groups. It is the headquarters of the Religious Left in Washington, D.C. The National Council of Churches, as it struggles to survive and closes its New York office, is consolidating its headquarters there.
It’s sad to see this historic building, so prominently placed, and constructed by Methodist Prohibitionists in the 1920s to exalt civic righteousness, serve as just another meet up spot for the next step of the Sexual Revolution. I don’t know exactly which agency was hosting today’s pro-same sex marriage advocacy. But the Board of Church and Society is supposed only to rent space to groups that uphold United Methodism’s Social Principles.
Those Principles declare: “We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” This stance has been overwhelmingly affirmed by three General Conferences. Yet the Board of Church and Society, which is supposed to represent United Methodism politically, ignores it almost completely. I say “almost” only because this official stance restrains the Board from explicitly lobbying for same sex marriage.
Some day, as our church becomes more global, the United Methodist Building again will belong to the whole church, and not only to self-select liberal activists. Until that day, it remains just a playground for fill-in-the-blank left-wing politics.
Comment by eMatters on March 26, 2013 at 3:31 pm
John Wesley would never stop throwing up if he saw the wolves running the UMC.
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on March 26, 2013 at 3:54 pm
One cannot help but think of the “abomination of desolation” (Antiochus IV Epiphanes setting up an altar to Zeus in the Second Temple).
Comment by Diana Hagewood Smith on March 26, 2013 at 9:29 pm
The Social Principles also affirm support for equal civil rights for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. Which begs the question, whether or not the church as a religious institution is fully inclusive, why aren’t you advocating for full political inclusion of all peoples regardless of their sexual orientation?
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on March 27, 2013 at 11:26 am
Besides the fact that no one is arguing against full political inclusion (Did I miss something? Are gays being denied the right to vote?), you are ignoring what the Discipline (which supersedes the Social Principles) and Bible (which supersedes all) say about homosexual behavior.
There is a civil rights argument for same-sex marriage, the same argument that could be used to affirm my right to marry any person(s) of legal age, including my daughter, son, mother, brother, etc. Once you jettison the uniqueness of heterosexual marriage (in effect, the “cultural DNA”) then the sky is the limit, and, if you are to be consistent, you must be open to other changes in marriage.
Many traditionally-minded people, Christian and otherwise, would rather not have to address this issue because they have no antipathy toward gays, but this is an matter that rabid marriage redefinition activists are forcing on them. So, they have no choice but to respond.
It is certainly logical to ask, if we are to redefine marriage, if we are to embark on this major foundational shift which conflicts with several thousand years of a particular understanding, affirmed my all major cultures and religious traditions, where might it end. Is there anything that would be out of bounds, as long as it involved two (or more) consenting adults?
Is it not reasonable to point out that the historical research we have on gay marriage is almost nonexistent compared to traditional marriage? Is it not important to know that most of the studies in sociology and psychology are heavily subjective and done by mostly left-leaning individuals? Is it not also relevant that the media and entertainment industries, including large segments of academia, many of whom have previously had little use for marriage, regularly trumpet gay marriage and give short shrift to traditional viewpoints?
Interestingly, regarding Prop 8, CA law already gave gay couples the same benefits as marriage, but they were still not satisfied. Revealingly, in contrast to their rhetoric, gay marriage advocates were as much concerned with labels as actual rights (under a false “equality” argument). They wanted to force the issue, attempting to dictatorially control thinking by controlling the language, begging yet another question (using their typical vernacular): “how does my support of traditional marriage harm your civil union?”
Comment by gregpaley on March 27, 2013 at 5:13 pm
Regarding Diana Smith’s high regard for the Social Principles and lack of familiarity with the Bible: As a Christian, I am under divine mandate to love my neighbor. I am under no mandate to “include” everyone in the church, the body of Christ, and in fact I can cite numerous New Testament passages that refer rather specifically to beliefs and behaviors that EXCLUDE people from the church. I am also under no mandate to lend my support to a group of people whose lifestyle is clearly condemned in both Old and New Testaments.
As a cog in the UM bureaucracy, you are accustomed to the familiar jargon and the power of various words and phrases, so you may assume that the word “inclusive” has some sort of magical power, and apparently in the UM seminaries and General Boards, it does. (Certainly it shows up in your various “policy statements” much more often than words like “salvation” and “repentance.”) I am an ex-UM, no longer connected to any liberal denomination, and thus “inclusive” does not work the magic power on me, nor do I find any warrant for it in the Bible or Christian tradition. In fact, even your “inclusive” churches do not practice “full inclusion.” If a man showed up one Sunday and introduced himself as Bob, an unrepentant wife abuser, would you make him feel welcome? I think not. I’m betting a guy who said he was an avid member of the NRA wouldn’t exactly get a warm welcome either. So your statement about your church being “fully inclusive” doesn’t ring true. No human organization has every been fully “inclusive,” and the church isn’t meant to be. However, if you think there is some biblical support for “full inclusion,” feel free to cite some texts. John Wesley, btw, had a rather long list of behaviors for which he would exclude people from being members of his Methodist societies. Would you care to guess how JW would react to ordained clergy beating the drum for the “right” of two men to marry? JW was a lot of things, but he wasn’t trendy and he wasn’t shallow.
Ask yourself this rather obvious question – obvious, I mean, to someone outside your liberal cocoon: how is it that “inclusive” denominations are shrinking? In theory, it should be drawing hordes of gays, lesbians, transgenders, the Politically Correct, etc. No doubt your church is proud to jump on the “Open hearts” propaganda machine, but is a failure as an advertising campaign. As C. S. Lewis observed, when non-Christians convert to Christianity, they generally tend to go for the “full-strength” variety, not the watery political religion of the mainlines. I generally find that the mainlines pick up a few ex-evangelicals, who pass through the mainlines as a way station to agnosticism and atheism. Monitor the membership numbers and observe how few people are attracted to any religious group that advertises “No moral standards here!”
Comment by johns79 on March 27, 2013 at 8:46 am
By this standard:
“But the Board of Church and Society is supposed only to rent space to groups that uphold United Methodism’s Social Principles.”
the Board of Church and Society would have to evict itself.