Worse than You Thought: Details of British Methodist Church Shift on Marriage, Cohabitation

The big news this week in global Methodism was Wednesday’s vote by the governing conference of the Methodist Church of Great Britain (aka British Methodist Church) to redefine its understanding of marriage to include same-sex couples. Most headlines and hot takes narrowly focus on this. 

That is all many liberals need to know to cheer the denomination “getting with the program” of conforming its values to world of the secular Western culture (so much for Romans 12:2). That is all some orthodox British Methodists need to know to feel the need to find a new church.

But there are further important details.

The result was not a huge surprise. Previous voting in regional districts had already gone overwhelmingly in favor of the  foundational change, to declare that British Methodism “consents in principle to the marriage of same-sex couples on Methodist premises throughout the Connexion and by Methodist ministers,” with Wednesday’s vote by a whopping 85 percent super-majority reportedly “being the final consideration.”

Interestingly, in the district voting on this landmark Resolution 10/8, the official results showed higher-than-average opposition in the London district (see page 7/804). The denomination’s London area has been described as “multi-ethnic,” and reportedly its “black churches have seen growth.”

Anyone who doubts that churches embracing same-sex unions has major implications for heterosexual sin should note the how the British Methodist Church has now also decided to become more permissive on non-marital cohabitation.

The British Methodist Church governing assembly affirmed as its “summary understanding of cohabitation” that it even-handedly “recognises” and “celebrate[s]” the love of God in committed relationships, “whether that be through informal cohabitation or a more formal commitment entered into publicly” (see page 24/821). This statement offers no moral disapproval of sex or cohabitation outside of marriage. It rather vaguely says that the church should “point to the presence of God’s love within such relationships” and “encourage people to respond to it in the renewing and deepening (by whatever means) of their commitment.”

This Resolution 10/3 was already approved, overwhelmingly, in previous district-level voting (see pages 5/802 – 6/803).

As early as 2015, a British Methodist Church resolution “directed that consideration of cohabitation should form part of any process of revising the Methodist Church’s definition of marriage” (see page 5). A 2019 report (see pages 32-33) rationalized the British Methodist Church’s growing openness to cohabitation by noting the reality of many people now openly living this lifestyle with widespread social acceptance and urging respect for all people created in God’s image—remarkably similar to key arguments heard for churches embracing homosexuality. That denominational report also noted that commitment levels of cohabiting relationships wax and wane , and so encouraged “the development of liturgical practices to support and celebrate various stages or forms of committed relating.” Perhaps the British Methodist Church will later authorize something like this ceremony for cohabitation vows. 

The British Methodist Church conference also voted to change its official definition of marriage from “a life-long union in body, mind and spirit of one man and one woman.” A newly endorsed definition is as follows:

“The Methodist Church understands that marriage is given by God to be a particular channel of God’s grace, and that it is in accord with God’s purposes when a marriage is a life-long union in body, mind and spirit of two people who freely enter it. Within the Methodist Church this is understood in two ways: that marriage can only be between a man and a woman; that marriage can be between any two people. The Methodist Church affirms both understandings and makes provision in its Standing Orders for them.” (see page 5/43)

The conference also approved amending subsequent sections of the British Methodist Church’s Standing Orders to explicitly authorize ministers to officiate and local churches to host same-sex “marriage” services. 

In the details, it is essentially up to each local congregation to decide whether they will have a policy of hosting same-sex weddings or only opposite-sex weddings. 

The conference voted to say (see Rule 011B.4 on page 5/43) that “no same-sex marriage may take place on Methodist premises unless” the relevant trustees “have approved the use of the premises for that purpose….” The British Methodist Church quickly posted an FAQ page which highlighted that “it is vital that local churches understand that they are under no obligation to” adopt a same-sex-marriage-friendly policy (emphasis original).

But the assembly also adopted a resolution saying that each local congregations’ “managing trustees should reconsider the question” of their hosting same-sex weddings “every five years or sooner” (see provision G6 on page 7/45). That sounds like laying the groundwork for subjecting any holdout conservative congregations to continual harassment every few years to reconsider their unwillingness to host same-sex weddings! 

As for ministers, the newly approved amendments to church rules do say, “Under no circumstances does the Conference require any person who is subject to the discipline of the Church as a minister, probationer, officer or member to officiate at or participate in the marriage of a particular couple, should it be contrary to the dictates of his or her conscience to do so.” Then there is the added statement, “Every effort shall be made to ensure that no individual is placed under any pressure to act against the dictates of conscience” (see page 5/43).

But then it gets worse. 

What happens when a conservative pastor is asked to perform a same-sex wedding, or a congregation that has already decided to not host same-sex weddings is asked to host one? 

Apparently, the British Methodism’s liberal majority is not content to just leave them alone. 

Another approved change to Rule 011B.5 actually says, “A minister, probationer or member who is asked to officiate at the marriage of a same-sex couple…but who is prevented from officiating for reasons of conscience shall” connect the couple with a regional denominational leader, called a District Chair, to help them find another minister to do so (emphasis added). 

Fellow church-law nerds readily understand that the word “shall,” rather than “may,” is mandatory language. It means that such a referral is not a mere option, but something that ministers and even members are required to do. 

This has major implications. It effectively changes the job description of District Chairs to having a duty to be a referral service for same-sex weddings. This alone effectively purges traditionalist believers, who would view facilitating such ceremonies as unfaithful, from serving in these key denominational leadership positions (similar to some proposals for the independent United Methodist Church). 

If a pastor is truly concerned for anyone making such a request, s/he would not just want to send them away, but have a pastoral conversation, ideally in the context of long-term friendship, that might eventually dissuade them from homosexual sin. 

But this new provision needlessly butts into to such sensitive pastoral conversations, by requiring ministers to actively work to encourage people to find arrangements for rituals claiming divine blessings on what traditionalist pastors believe is serious sin. 

It is precisely because theologically orthodox Christians love all people that we do not want to encourage anyone to indulge in any sort of ultimately self-destructive sin. One could hardly expect Scripture or 2,000 years of consistent Christian tradition to be clearer in teaching that that homosexual practice is inherently sinful. If you really believe that, then why would you want to take ANY part in encouraging and helping actions that you believe dishonor God, hurt your denomination, and are ultimately destructive to the individuals misguidedly seeking a ceremony to falsely claim some blessing on their sin? 

Simply adding the District Chair as one degree of separation hardly solves the problem. As an analogy, since it would be wrong of me to buy my 12-year-old neighbor drugs, no matter how hard he begged me, there would be no moral coherence in me telling him, “Let me go out and help you find someone else who will buy drugs for you.” 

Another approved amendment (011B.7 on page 6/44) uses similar “shall” language to require any congregation unwilling to host same-sex unions to respond to same-sex couples who approach them with referrals to help them find another venue, to ensure that the ceremony can happen.

Furthermore, the earlier-quoted language about supposed respect for conscience is in tension with another approved amendment (Part 011B.9 on page 6/44) broadly declaring, “The Methodist Church opposes discrimination on the basis of sexuality….” It continues: “Accordingly, if a couple is seeking to be married in a Methodist place of worship or elsewhere no objection to the performance by a particular minister, probationer, officer or member of any duty in respect of their proposed marriage shall be entertained on such a ground. No minister, probationer, officer or member shall perform the relevant duty or duties in place of the other person concerned or otherwise assist the couple to make the objection effective.”

This hardly seems to leave room for conscience-driven refusal to the performance of a wedding based on the couple’s gay sexuality. 

The Rev. Dr. David Hull, leader of the traditionalist Methodist Evangelicals Together group, said that the new policy’s conscience protection “is just unsustainable.”

In a statement before the big marriage votes, the Rev. Sonia Hicks, the denomination’s newly elected President, likened disapproval of same-sex marriage with racist bigotry. 

But racism is an unambiguous evil. You don’t seek to coddle or protect space for such harmful things to flourish. If the denomination’s top leadership really sees biblical orthodoxy the same way, then any toleration of remaining traditionalist clergy and congregations will be only temporary.

The denomination’s liberal majority also spoke volumes about its lack of respect for conscience, when push comes to shove, on Thursday. That day,  the conference separately adopted a resolution blanketly denouncing “conversion therapy.” That phrase is broadly used by critics for a variety of counseling practices which the critics tend to define in overly vague ways. But for people experiencing unwanted same-sex attractions, why should they not be allowed to choose careful, compassionate counseling with proven track records of significantly lessening (if not eliminating) the experience of such unwanted feelings?

But this resolution “call[s] on all Methodists to refuse to offer or participate in offering conversion therapy in any form.” This effectively tells same-sex-attracted persons that if they fail to conform to limiting, secular-ideology-driven boundaries for acceptable, liberal LGBTQ persons that they are no longer welcome in the British Methodist Church.

The resolution goes much further, actually “call[ing] on the UK government to ban the practice without delay.” Seeking to use the inherently violent force of government to crush and outlaw “counter-revolutionary” conversations between consenting adults is rather extreme totalitarianism.   

British Methodism only has some 164,000 members in a nation of nearly 70 million. It has also been rapidly shrinking, and in 2017 reported, “The majority of current members are retirement age.” These recent decisions, which I am told are all now final, are unlikely to help.