Methodist church suspends straight sex marriages...

[LSN80]

Until same-sex marriages become legal, anyway and receives a blessing from it's denomination to perform ceremonies. This is certainly an interesting turn of events, as much of the outcry you see from most Bible-based churches is against same-sex marriage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...hurch-stops-straight-marriages_n_2901075.html

The church here in question, Green Street United Methodist Church of Winston-Salem North Carolina, issued the following statement on Monday regarding the decision:

On the matter of same-sex marriage, Green Street UMC sees injustice in the legal position of state government and the theological position of our denomination. North Carolina prohibits same-sex marriage and all the rights and privileges marriage brings. The Leadership Council has asked that their ministers join others who refuse to sign any State marriage licenses until this right is granted to same-sex couples.

What makes this incredibly unique is that among the Methodist denominations, the United Methodist denomination has been the one in the past that has held the harshest stances against same-sex marriage and homosexuality. They've ventured into the political realm with this stance as well, as evidenced by the following:

"United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality, allow self-avowed practicing homosexuals to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church. The United Methodist Church in addition supports laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

Whether intentional or not, the language here is quite strong in the bolded passage. It's not said outright, but if civil society law is that marriage is one between a man and a woman, it implies homosexual marriages as being uncivil, does it not? In other words, lacking in courtesy, ill-mannered, impolite, and not conducive to civic harmony and welfare. North Carolina as a whole seemingly agrees, as an amendment was passed with 61% of the vote to ban same sex marriage.

Where I'm going is this: If the United Methodist church holds such strong beliefs, it's a hell of a rebellion against the whole of the denomination to take this stance. Reverand Kelly Carpenter, the head minister of the church, said the following regarding the church's decision:

"Green Street Methodist Church is hoping to send a signal both to politicians in North Carolina and fellow Methodists. We are trying to find a way to be more of a public witness to our own denomination. It's also a message to other United Methodists. We feel that we're a church that's very welcoming to gays and lesbians, and we want our denomination to be welcoming as well."

I've never been a fan of churches mixing theology with politics, it's a slippery slope of mixing messages. However, the fact remains that churches are amongst the most influential to people with regards to change. People often credit with beginning to attend church as a positive change in their life, and if they can affect change in an individual's life, I suppose that clout could be used in worse ways then to try to bring about change of a positive fashion with regards to equality. I don't know or care what Rev. Carpenter believes regarding same-sex marriage, he doesn't say. But the bigger picture is that he wants his church, and the denomination in whole, to be more welcoming of all people. And I can't see a flaw in that.

Do you like the idea of a church suspending heterosexual marriage until same-sex marriage is approved?

Thoughts about a church rebelling against the doctrine it's own denomination espouses?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. It's a unique, surprising decision, being taken into the political realm as well. I imagine there will be both strong supporters and detractors of this alike, and I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out in the following days and weeks.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Despite the mixed message this church is sending regarding whether they do/do not support same-sex marriage, the problem inherent in banning heterosexual marriages until gay marriages are approved reeks of the same old: "You'll do things my way, and that's the only way you'll do them" doctrine that puts up restrictions in matters that should involve only personal choice.

In this case, we have hetero couples that want to wed and may (or may not) care a bit about the same-sex marriage argument; it doesn't concern them and has nothing to do with their impending nuptials.

And yet, now it does. The straight couple can't get married in their own church because said church has become involved in a cause that means little or nothing to the couple. After all, if the church agrees to marry these two, how is the same-sex cause going to be affected, one way or the other?

It's still another case of a church deciding what's best for everyone. What's to stop the couple from deserting this Methodist church and getting married in another? Then, the church loses membership. Of course, that's been happening for years in churches all over.....and here's another reason why.

It reminds me of the incident in Mississippi last year in which a high school prom was cancelled by the school board because the American Civil Liberties Union demanded that a lesbian couple be allowed to attend. Rather than permit that, the prom was called off, stranding all the straight couples who weren't involved in the incident at all; they just wanted to go to their prom. What did one thing have to do with the other?

Nothing.....and that's the point.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Thats silly. You dont FORCE people to boycott marriage. hello. Why punish people who support your side?

 

[Thriller Ant]

Thats silly. You dont FORCE people to boycott marriage. hello. Why punish people who support your side?

I think the concept is good, but they are going too far with it. Maybe set aside a week or month where they say that there will be no heterosexual weddings if gay marriage isn't allowed. Make it symbolic rather than a punishment.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

I think the concept is good, but they are going too far with it. Maybe set aside a week or month where they say that there will be no heterosexual weddings if gay marriage isn't allowed. Make it symbolic rather than a punishment.

I agree. The same statement could have been sent had they suspended marriages for a month. But indefinitely until gay marriage is legal? That's just ridiculous. I don't think "Everybody can marry or no one can" is a good message.

I'm pretty sure this "protest" will end soon enough though. In about a few months, I can see the church marrying people again.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I understand the general message that this church is trying to send and I'm surprise & pleased to see a church come forward. It's not at all common to see any Christian religions denomination or even any single church to come out and voice that gay couples should have the same level rights as heterosexual couples.

I do have to say that, on a personal level, there's a part of me that likes the notion of sort of "banning" marriage altogether if state laws refuse to allow gay marriage. Maybe that feeling simply stems from the frustration I feel sometimes when it comes to the politics of this. To me it's simple: either EVERYONE is equal under the law or the laws aren't worth the papers they're printed on and the Constitution is a sham.

I do agree that it comes off as a little silly but, then again, I'm a straight person looking at this. The idea of suspending straight marriage indefinitely sounds a bit ludicrous because it's such a huge part of society. For some in the gay community though, they might see this as a huge gesture of good will from this church and be all for it.