[Note: This is an updated and expanded version of a private post I wrote before the conclusion of the postponed 2020 General Conference of the United Methodist Church. Friends have encouraged me to publish a final account of protections for traditionalists omitted by the General Conference of the United Methodist Church at their General Conference in Charlotte that concluded May 3, 2024.]

In planning for proposed liberalizing of church teaching, the high-profile Commission on a Way Forward (2016-2019) acknowledged that several guardrails were necessary if the the United Methodist Church was to open the door to LGBTQIA+ weddings, clergy and bishops. Their endorsed 2019 One Church Plan (OCP) provided legislative assurances for those who believe the Bible teaches that marriage is to be preserved as the union of one man and one woman. The UMC General Conference in Charlotte omitted these protective measures as described below.

Missing: Protections for Local Churches

The One Church Plan did not allow same-sex weddings in UM sanctuaries except in those congregations that specifically voted to host them. It suggested adding: “Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual union same-sex marriage shall not be performed conducted by clergy our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches on church-owned property unless the church decides by a majority vote of a Church Conference to adopt a policy to celebrate same-sex marriage on church property.” The implication was that clergy could conduct same-sex weddings at their own discretion outside of church property. But the church had to specifically approve them in their own sanctuary. This key restriction will be missing in the new Book of Discipline. But can a traditional-minded UM church prevent same-sex weddings in their sanctuary?

A long-standing provision forbids a local church board of trustees from interfering with the pastor in holding religious services allowed by The United Methodist Church (¶2533). Toward the end of the most recent General Conference, the Judicial Council was asked for a declaratory decision on whether local churches could set their own policies restricting same-sex marriage. While their answer seems clear enough [“Nothing in ¶ 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.”] it must be noted that no same-sex marriages are permitted under the 2016 Book of Discipline. Of course a local church can set a policy simply repeating what the BOD already says. We have no judicial or legislative assurances relevant for the new Discipline in which same-sex weddings are permitted. This decision is as good as no decision at all.

While any number of verbal assurances have been given that practicing gay clergy will only be appointed to churches that would welcome them, the revised Book of Discipline requires otherwise. “Sexual orientation” is a new category included in open itinerancy, the policy that clergy appointments “are to be made without regard to ____________.” Under the new ¶ 425.1, annual conferences shall train staff-parish relations committee to receive pastors regardless of sexual orientation. Here is that new language:

Responsibility—1. Clergy shall be appointed by the bishop, who is empowered to make and fix all appointments in the episcopal area of which the annual conference is a part. Appointments are to be made with consideration of the gifts and evidence of God’s grace of those appointed, to the needs, characteristics, and opportunities of congregations and institutions, and with faithfulness to the commitment to an open itineracy. Open itineracy means appointments are made without regard to race, ethnicity origin, gender, color, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or age, except for the provisions of mandatory retirement. Annual conferences shall, in their training of staff-parish relations committees, emphasize the open nature of itineracy and prepare congregations to receive the gifts and graces of appointed clergy without regard to race, ethnicity origin, gender, color, disability, marital status, economic condition, sexual orientation, or age.

Due to legacy Judicial Council rulings, guaranteed appointments for elders in good standing are a bedrock constitutional mandate in the UMC. As the UMC becomes more progressive, fewer and fewer traditional clergy are and will be available to serve and be ordained in the UMC.

Missing: Protection of Conscience Language

The One Church Plan specifically affirmed those who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. It proposed adding the language: “We affirm those who continue to maintain that the Scriptural witness does not condone the practice of homosexuality. We believe that their conscience should be protected in the church and throughout society under basic principles of religious liberty. We also affirm those who believe the witness of Scripture calls us to reconsider the teaching of the church with respect to monogamous homosexual relationships.” This attempt at balance is missing in the actions of the most recent General Conference. Also missing is specification that affirmation be given to (only) monogamous homosexual relationships.

Missing: A Nod to Traditional Marriage

The One Church Plan (OCP) stated that, while same-sex marriage would be limitedly allowed, monogamous heterosexual marriage is normative. That language is missing in the Revised Social Principles approved in 2024. The One Church Plan would have stated:

“We affirm the sanctity of the monogamous marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity, traditionally understood as a union of one man and one woman. between a man and a woman. We believe that God’s blessing rests upon such
marriage, whether or not there are children of the union. We reject social norms that assume different standards for women than for men in marriage. Where laws in civil society define marriage as union between two adults, no United Methodist clergy shall be required to celebrate or bless a same-sex union. We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.“

The Revised Social Principles makes no reference to how marriage has been traditionally understood. In ¶161G, the One Church Plan retained in the Social Principles that sex is exclusively for marriage. The language is missing in the revised Social Principles that were approved.

Missing: Protections for Annual Conferences

The One Church Plan left in place the now omitted ordination standard of “celibacy in singleness and fidelity in marriage.” (304.2) It allowed each annual conference (including those in the U.S.), through its clergy session and board of ordained ministry, to decide how it would approach the topic of human sexuality. It would have added:

“The responsibility for determining how standards, including standards related to human sexuality, may apply to certification or ordination in a given annual conference falls to the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry and the clergy session of the annual conference. The bishop may choose to seek the non-binding advice of an annual conference session on standards relating to human sexuality for ordination to inform the Board of Ordained Ministry in its work.”

Conference-level standards for human sexuality are not provided for in the new Book of Discipline. There is no basis for creating policies limiting candidates for ministry based on human sexuality. In 20173-FO-¶304.2-G, ordination standards were changed as follows: “fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness, social responsibility, and growth in grace and in the knowledge and love of God social responsibility, and faithful sexual intimacy expressed through fidelity, monogamy, commitment, mutual affection and respect, careful and honest communication, mutual consent, and growth in grace and in the knowledge and love of God.” This new standard, a nebula of non-objectionable words, technically allows for monogamous sexual relationships among the single clergy.

“Sexual orientation” is now a diversity category to be included in the leadership structures of all annual conferences. The list of offenses for which a clergy can be charged in an annual conference has been significantly edited so as to become less specific:

The New ¶2702.1: 1. A bishop, clergy member of an annual conference (¶ 370), local pastor, clergy on honorable or administrative location, or diaconal minister may be tried when charged (subject to the statute of limitations in ¶ 2702.4) with one of more of the following offenses: (a) immorality including but not limited to, not being celibate in singleness or not faithful in a heterosexual marriage, (b) practices declared by The United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings, including but not limited to being a self-avowed practicing homosexual, or conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual union, or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies; (b) crime; (c) disobedience to the order and discipline of The United Methodist Church; (d) dissemination of doctrines contrary to the established standards of doctrine of The United Methodist Church; (e) relationship and/or behavior that undermines the ministry of another pastor; (f) child abuse; (g) sexual abuse; (h) sexual misconduct including the use of possession of pornography, (i) harassment, including but not limited to racila and/or sexual harassment; (j) racial, or gender discrimination; or (k) fiscal malfeasance.

Missing: Protections for Clergy

Clergy who did not agree with the stance of their annual conference related to human sexuality were supported in their efforts at transfer under the OCP (proposed ¶ 340.3.c.). Clergy who were out of line with their local church on this topic were granted reassignment. These transfer protections will be missing in the new Book of Discipline. While the new Discipline states that no clergy shall be forced to conduct a same-sex wedding, the One Church Plan included these protections more often and in more expansive language.

Missing: Protections for/from Bishops

Under the One Church Plan, bishops were not required to “ordain an elder or deacon, commission a deaconess, home missioner, or missionary, or license a local pastor who is a self-avowed practicing homosexual.” (Proposed ¶415.6) It was up to the jurisdictional college of bishops to provide ordination, commissioning, or licensing for those recommended by the board of ordained ministry. This protection, too, will be absent in the new Book of Discipline.

The One Church Plan stated (p. 18): “GCFA will work to determine a method to ensure that all Episcopal Areas in the United States will contribute at least the cost of their own bishop’s compensation package (salary, benefits, and housing allowance) along with its share of apportionments for the Episcopal Fund.” Presumably, this was to prevent more traditional conferences from funding gay bishops elected in other jurisdictions. No such provisions will be included in the new Book of Discipline.

Summary

The high-level Commission on a Way Forward worked for two years to develop a plan that allowed for widening of human sexuality standards while at least attempting to protect traditionalists in the church. The vast majority of those protections were not enacted at the postponed 2020 General Conference 2020(2024). The new Book of Disciplines of the UMC is much more radical that any of the plans developed by The Commission on a Way Forward.