April 30, 2014

Methodist Top Court Upholds Policy of Domestic Partner Benefits

Institute on Religion and Democracy Press Release | April 30, 2014
Contact: Jeff Walton office: 202-682-4131, cell: 202-413-5639, e-mail: jwalton@TheIRD.org

 

“We betray our calling as the Body of Christ by failing to uphold what Christ taught and what His Church has always proclaimed.”
-John Lomperis, UMAction Director

 

Washington, D.C.—United Methodism’s top court has upheld the church’s financial agency’s policy of granting spousal benefits to same-sex spouses and unmarried opposite-sex domestic partners of church agency employees in states where those domestic arrangements have legal recognition.

United Methodism officially approves of sex only between a man and woman married to each other. Persons sexually active outside natural marriage may not serve as clergy. There is currently no clear policy on lay church employees.

IRD’s UMAction Program Director John Lomperis commented:

“Of course the 2016 General Conference will have to legislate a remedy by establishing firmer employment restrictions and affirming spousal benefits exclusively for persons in natural marriage. Otherwise, United Methodist agencies are little different from any secular employer.

“Biblical Christian teaching about the sacredness of marriage is central to the church’s faith and practice. We betray our calling as the Body of Christ by failing to uphold what Christ taught and what His Church has always proclaimed.

“The current policy, ratified non-unanimously and rather hastily by a small group of people in one church agency, declares to the world that United Methodist agency employees don’t have to take seriously our church’s identity and teachings. It suggests there is no higher standard of morality for our global church than the winds of U.S. politics. If we don’t take our own standards and faith seriously, why should anybody else?”

www.TheIRD.org


9 Responses to Methodist Top Court Upholds Policy of Domestic Partner Benefits

  1. Pudentiana says:

    And they spat in His Face again.

  2. cleareyedtruthmeister says:

    I could not agree with John Lomperis more.

    With these dubious rulings the UMC has officially been plunged headlong into sexual secularism, thereby elevating and lending further unwarranted credence to the misguided “sexuality-as-identity” movement.

    Pagan sexuality as described in the Old Testament appears to have little on the current UMC Judicial Council. The Canaanite goddess Asherah was worshiped in various ways, including through ritual sex. Although she was believed to be Baal’s mother, she was also his mistress…makes one wonder what barriers UMC sexual liberationists intend to break next.

    The slippery slope toward immorality and schism has just been doused with oil.

    • Marco Bell says:

      Greetings again Cleareyedtruthmeister!

      Your words:
      “Sexuality-as-identity” movement.
      Quite honestly, sexuality should have nothing to do with one’s identity.

      Whether one is heterosexual or otherwise, it really doesn’t define the individual, the only way that Christian teaching is able to define it is Male and Female. That’s your definition of the extent of gender…correct?

      My friends and family that are Gay or Lesbian, don’t use that as a defining trait. Because it doesn’t matter.
      I believe you’re saying that sexuality IS a defining trait?

      By your definition of sexuality, the Bible confirms the age old pairing of male and female. Basically for procreative purposes. Where does that leave the many individuals that seek the same societal benefits of marriage, that protects all other participants?

      Many may have no intention of bearing children. But deserve the same benefits as those who you defend as worthy traditionalists.

      I’m not trying to be difficult, just fair.
      Please explain how traditional Christian teaching will deal with this growing conundrum?

      Sincerely,
      Marco

    • Chris Ellis says:

      Well said Cleareyedtruthmeister!

  3. Marco Bell says:

    “…If we don’t take our own standards and faith seriously, why should anybody else?”

    Most people know that there are Christians (and other religious parishioners) who take their faith very seriously, and the few that are offended by these societal decisions aren’t going to be thought of as recalcitrant or wayward.

    Many non-Christians won’t judge people for their marital status, but if there needs to be an absoluteness regarding employment and the benefits that come with it, then it’s just going to make it harder to find a job that doesn’t require strict religious tenets over-riding one’s work environment.

    Furthermore, one’s employment shouldn’t dictate their respective lifestyle or family profile. I think we should be happy to see the Courts upholding equality for all.

  4. Robin says:

    “United Methodism officially approves of sex only between a man and woman married to each other. Persons sexually active outside natural marriage may not serve as clergy.”

    That is FALSE! There are UMC clergy in active appointments and Bishops that are living in a homosexual lifestyle.

    At least tell the truth! That is part of the problem Ahab!

    • Chris Ellis says:

      It would not surprise me that Bishops and clergy are living sexually immoral lives. I bet it won’t be long until we a Bishop “come out of the closet.”

      Local churches need to stop giving their money to any level of the denomination or just plain leave!

  5. Financial Man says:

    If the current leadership has voted, outside of the rules of the Book of Discipline to provide financial support for same sex marriages, then it is time for me to leave this denomination for a church that takes Biblical teachings seriously.

  6. Roger says:

    We are a divided Church that has 2 groups that occupy the same space on Sundays and other meeting days. The basic 101 tenet that is lacking is “accountability”. John Wesley knew and said that we should hold people (one another) accountable. By doing so we strengthen the individual and the Church. The uncertain accountability of our top court, with our doctrine, leads many astray.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *