A decision handed down last week by the highest court in the United Methodist Church (UMC) further erodes space for traditionalists within the denomination.
Pastors will have sole discretion as to whether or not same-sex marriages will take place at local churches according to an April 29 ruling by the UMC Judicial Council. The decision came as a surprise to many who had the assurance of UMC officials that they would have a voice in how their local churches responded to the changes made at last year’s UMC General Conference.
Numerous past trustees and Staff-Parish/Pastor-Parish Relations Committee chairs in interviews with me attested to assurances made by local conference officials that local churches would be able to decide whether or not same-sex marriages were performed on their local church properties.
Church officials did so citing decision 1503 of the Judicial Council, a decision that came out shortly after the 2024 General Conference.
“Nothing in paragraph 2533 of the 2016 Book of Discipline prevents the Board of Trustees of a local church from adopting policies prohibiting the conduct of worship services that include same-sex marriage ceremonies,” the decision read.
Based on decision 2503 as well as verbal promises of conference representatives, laity were given assurances that proved incorrect. Conference officials should have known better.
The decision released last week states that the earlier decision 1503 was a “narrow ruling” but that the question brought before the Judicial Council this year was a “broader question.”
What happens when a pastor and church trustees have conflicting views? The answer the Judicial Council gave was that the trustees of a local church cannot create a policy that either prohibits or requires the pastor to perform a religious service.
“Bottom line: Whether a same-sex wedding occurs in a church is up to that church’s pastor,” summarized Heather Hahn of the United Methodist News Service (UMNS).
The Book of Discipline has historically protected the right of United Methodist pastors to decline to perform a wedding. It has also rested final authority of religious services taking place in the churches with the clergy appointed to serve there, and so local church leaders should have realized that, if brought before the Judicial Council, that standard would be applied to same-sex marriages.
The Judicial Council wrote in its decision that the question comes down to “whether a marriage is a religious service.” In her reporting, UMNS’ Hahn wrote, “Given that services for marriage are included in both the United Methodist Hymnal and Book of Worship, the Judicial Council concluded that a marriage ceremony is a religious service.”
It is good that the Judicial Council was able to recognize, as all other Christians have for 2,000 years, that the marriage service is indeed a religious ceremony.
However, if this was the central point of contention, then it should have been obvious to church leaders what the outcome would have been, and yet officials such as Loretta Isaiah, West Virginia Little Kanawha District Superintendent are on record saying, “It is the local church trustees who can set their policy about building use. So the real difficult conversation is going to happen at the local church level, in your context, with the people that you sit in worship with, with the people that you work with, with the people that that you know, you all, as a congregation, will have those hard decisions to make.”
It is good that pastors cannot be compelled to perform a wedding that goes against their conscience. Unfortunately, laity have no such conscience protection. Local churches they have served in and supported across decades can now be used for same-sex rites that go against their deeply held beliefs. The only response the UMC has is to tell parishioners that they are welcome as individuals (but no longer as local churches) to depart the denomination.
Time and time again, the UMC displays a lack of interest in the needs of laypersons. The focus of the UMC is clearly not the pastoral care of its congregants.
When the UMC General Conference redefined Christian marriage, it simultaneously adopted both traditional and progressive definitions. Once again, the idea seemingly was to allow for differing viewpoints. In effect, it was the denomination stating that, if you like your definition of marriage, you can keep your definition of marriage, but actions since the April 2024 General Conference demonstrate that this is not the case.
Whether or not your local church performs same-sex marriages will be entirely up to the pastor that is appointed to you, and in whose appointment you have virtually no input.
While many District Superintendents claim to factor in compatibility on these issues when making appointment decisions, this is seldom the case in reality. There simply aren’t enough clergy to realistically take those concerns into account.
This latest decision seems as though it would be incongruent with church stability, as church practice on such a fundamental issue can change with each new appointment. It will most likely lead to further decline in membership, and, if UMC officials had an strong interest in the laity, that would concern them, but for now, they seem to be content with decline.
More from IRD:
United Methodist Lobby Promotes Queer Theology Course
United Methodist ‘Safe Sanctuaries’ Excludes Traditionalists
Seeking Disaffiliation, Churches Sue West Virginia United Methodist Conference
Comment by PFSchaffner on May 6, 2025 at 11:14 am
Perhaps the two decisions can be squared. It is up to the Trustees what activities happen *in the building*; it is up to the pastor *which services he or she performs* in the pastoral capacity. One can imagine a situation (a rather ugly situation) in which the pastor is free to perform a service, but may only do so off-site, somewhere other than the church building.
Comment by Tim Mc on May 6, 2025 at 3:13 pm
Quote, “Numerous past trustees and Staff-Parish/Pastor-Parish Relations Committee chairs in interviews with me attested to assurances made by local conference officials that local churches would be able to decide whether or not same-sex marriages were performed on their local church properties.”
This happened at our church, with the District Superintendent telling us this exactly.
Soon, the leadership of the UMC, will tell pastors, they must perform marriages, to all who ask.
Rehoboam inherited the throne but didn’t inherit the wisdom. Scripture records, “He did evil because he had not set his heart on seeking the LORD” (2 Chronicles 12:14). A proud leader who won’t seek godly insight quickly dismantles unity.
Comment by Gary Bebop on May 6, 2025 at 4:07 pm
“Schaffner” doesn’t understand our polity. Local church trustees may not prohibit a duly appointed pastor from conducting worship in a Methodist church building. Weddings are rites of worship. They have sacramental efficacy. The article makes clear that the road is now open for all those aberrations we were warned about. We kept warning about this, but many laity were too blockheaded to believe it.
Comment by Tim Ware on May 6, 2025 at 9:37 pm
They may be able to force having homosexual marriages in those buildings, but they cannot force people to attend those churches, and neither can they force people to donate money to them. So the simple answer is…vote with your feet.
Comment by Gary Bebop on May 6, 2025 at 10:49 pm
As “Tim Mc” attests, many of the UMC superintendents proved out to be liars.
Comment by Tim Ware on May 7, 2025 at 12:10 am
Gary,
That’s because they are satanic. Remember that Jesus called Satan “the father of lies.”
Comment by Vivian on May 8, 2025 at 1:03 am
This strategy has been employed time and time again for 30 years. Progressive pastors and/or lay leaders will be supported, advanced, and rewarded. Traditional clergy will be abruptly reapplied to small, part time charges or dropped entirely ( “we just don’t have anywhere to send you”). Traditional laity will be ignored. This is why I am now a “done.”
Comment by Nathan on May 12, 2025 at 1:15 am
Mainline churches like UMC and TEC force churches to become pagan temples and won’t let the few faithful remaining congregations that built their church buildings at their own expense to even buy them back at full value and depart in peace.
If there were faithful congregations left I don’t know why none of them have taken to actually demolishing their own buildings rather than letting that happen. This is truly obscene.
Comment by Robert Kellner on May 12, 2025 at 1:30 pm
The intensifying noise is the swilling of toxic water at the drain gaining velocity.
Comment by Charlie Schaeffer on May 12, 2025 at 2:06 pm
This is only one step away from saying decisions about moral behavior and belief in the Gospel and views on any thing else in the non-secular domain are entirely up to the individual.
In other words, “whatever floats your boat,” you’re still good with us.
Comment by John Reuter, Esq. (Ret.) on May 13, 2025 at 11:18 am
P.F. Schaeffer – Your scenario cannot happen because the United Methodist Church’s top court ruled that a congregation’s trustees cannot prevent their pastor from using church facilities to perform a same-sex wedding.
Comment by Terry Goodwin on May 13, 2025 at 11:18 am
I warned them, sent them info and updates after GC 2024. The fast freight train of apostasy was bearing down on our once-beloved denomination. But they remained in denial.
I’m so sad for the traditionalists. It seems that ignorance is not bliss after all.
Comment by John Reuter, Esq. (Ret.) on May 13, 2025 at 11:23 am
Schaffer- please review. The decision gives total authority to the pastor. The Trustees no longer have anything to do with it.
https://www.umnews.org/en/news/ruling-same-sex-weddings-solely-up-to-pastors
Comment by Bill Messersmith on May 13, 2025 at 11:43 am
Nothing new. Liberals using the same tactics they have used for decades. Tell you one thing while they’re planning their way around it. Jesus crying not about only that issue but about the tactics.
Shame shame on the UMC