United Methodist Church Votes on Full Inclusion

May 1, 2009

It’s been exactly one year since I wrote the post that became the beginning of this blog on the day after the United Methodist Church decided that gay people shouldn’t be permitted full inclusion in the church.

There were many bad things about the 2008 General Conference, but one of the silver linings was the General Conference’s passage of an amendment to the UMC Constitution that removes a list of groups that we’re not going to exclude, replacing it with a fully inclusive “all”. The amendment, now designated as Amendment 1, was accepted by a 2:1 margin, with a final tally of 558-276. Following is Division One, ¶ 4, Article IV, with deleted language struck through and new language in bold.

Inclusiveness of the Church — The United Methodist Church is a part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ. The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth. and that we are in ministry to all. All persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, and upon baptism be admitted as baptized members, and. All persons, upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith, and relationship in Jesus Christ, shall be eligible to become professing members in any local church in the connection. In the United Methodist Church no conference or other organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any constituent body of the Church because of race, color, national origin, status or economic condition.

The West Ohio Conference (WE RULE!) has put together a breakdown of the rationales for and against this amendment, as well as the other 31 amendments being considered this year. (Amendment 1 is Group 3.)

Before the amendment is added to the Constitution, it must be voted on at all of this year’s 99 Annual or Central Conference meetings, the first of which met in Nigeria this January. The UMC uses an aggregate voter system, as opposed to an electoral-style system like the Presbyterian Church did in their voting earlier this year. None of the results will be announced until Fall 2009 when the Council of Bishops convenes.

And that’s a little frustrating from the standpoint of a terribly impatient gay man who has a horse in the race.  So while we wait (impatiently), here’s a video from the Reconciling Ministries Network, the LGBT group within the UMC.

[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/1107195[/vimeo]


  • http://gracklegallery.blogspot.com Chris Guldi

    Hi, Matt,
    I’m looking for resources to share re this amendment, which I support. I am afraid you have misquoted it. UMC.org published the amended paragraph as:
    “Inclusiveness of the Church — The United Methodist Church is a part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ. The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth and that we are in ministry to all. All persons shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, and upon baptism be admitted as baptized members. All persons, upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith and relationship in Jesus Christ, shall be eligible to become professing members in any local church in the connection. In the United Methodist Church no conference or other organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any constituent body.” in
    http://www.umc.org/atf/cf/%7Bdb6a45e4-c446-4248-82c8-e131b6424741%7D/2008_proposed_constitutional_amendments.PDF

    • http://blog.mattalgren.com Matt Algren

      I lopped off the end, didn’t I? I think I fixed it above, but let me know if you still see anything wrong.

      Thanks for the correction. I appreciate it!

  • http://gracklegallery.blogspot.com Chris Guldi

    Hi, Matt,
    I’m looking for resources to share re this amendment, which I support. I am afraid you have misquoted it. UMC.org published the amended paragraph as:
    “Inclusiveness of the Church — The United Methodist Church is a part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ. The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth and that we are in ministry to all. All persons shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, and upon baptism be admitted as baptized members. All persons, upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith and relationship in Jesus Christ, shall be eligible to become professing members in any local church in the connection. In the United Methodist Church no conference or other organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any constituent body.” in
    http://www.umc.org/atf/cf/%7Bdb6a45e4-c446-4248-82c8-e131b6424741%7D/2008_proposed_constitutional_amendments.PDF

    • http://blog.mattalgren.com Matt Algren

      I lopped off the end, didn’t I? I think I fixed it above, but let me know if you still see anything wrong.

      Thanks for the correction. I appreciate it!

  • Pingback: markcovington.org » Blog Archive » United Methodist Constitutional Amendments

  • http://umamendments.blogspot.com/ Methodist Amendments

    If you want to follow my “unofficial” results of the voting in the various conferences, check out:

    http://umamendments.blogspot.com

    I will be updating it as I can discover the results of individual conferences.

  • Lee Greenawalt

    The concern of Amendment 1 is the exclusion of local control of the voting membership within a congregation. One pastor reported that a small group of persons had attempted to join a small church primarily to organize a cell of the Ku Klux Klan in a New Hamshire town. Another pastor reported that a man sought to join a church simply to cause discomfort and pressure his ex-wife from association with the support she had gotten from the church. While the amendment seeks to eliminate unfair discrimination by a local pastor, it opens the door of voting membership and office holding to persons whose verbal affirmations clearly do not reflect their actual spiritual natures.

  • http://blog.mattalgren.com Matt Algren

    Hi Lee! Thanks for commenting.

    I did a (very) little digging this morning, and I can't find a first-hand account of the KKK thing. The closest I could find was a guy who knew a guy. Nothing at all on the harassing ex-husband. Until I hear from one of the principals in the incident, I'm afraid I have to assume that the stories are apocryphal.

    That aside, though, what you're arguing in your comment is the regulation of attendance. That isn't the issue at hand. The churches I know, Methodist or not, have an unstated open attendance policy.

    Neither of your examples requires actual membership. The KKK could (and does) organize without UMC membership. Similarly, if an person wanted to make his/her ex-spouse uncomfortable as you describe, membership wouldn't be a necessity. He/She could just as easily harass by attending without membership, in which case I'd suggest that the person being harassed contact law enforcement and obtain a restraining order.

    What I wouldn't suggest is a policy whereby local pastors get to decide which people can attend his/her church. That's just a recipe for disaster, and antithetical to the mission of the United Methodist Church.

  • http://blog.mattalgren.com Matt Algren

    Hi Lee! Thanks for commenting.

    I did a (very) little digging this morning, and I can't find a first-hand account of the KKK thing. The closest I could find was a guy who knew a guy. Nothing at all on the harassing ex-husband. Until I hear from one of the principals in the incident, I'm afraid I have to assume that the stories are apocryphal.

    That aside, though, what you're arguing in your comment is the regulation of attendance. That isn't the issue at hand. The churches I know, Methodist or not, have an unstated open attendance policy.

    Neither of your examples requires actual membership. The KKK could (and does) organize without UMC membership. Similarly, if a person wanted to make his/her ex-spouse uncomfortable as you describe, membership wouldn't be a necessity. He/She could just as easily harass by attending without membership, in which case I'd suggest that the person being harassed contact law enforcement and obtain a restraining order.

    What I wouldn't suggest is a policy whereby local pastors get to decide which people can attend his/her church. That's just a recipe for disaster, and antithetical to the mission of the United Methodist Church.

  • http://blog.mattalgren.com Matt Algren

    Hi Lee! Thanks for commenting.

    I did a (very) little digging this morning, and I can't find a first-hand account of the KKK thing. The closest I could find was a guy who knew a guy. Nothing at all on the harassing ex-husband. Until I hear from one of the principals in the incident, I'm afraid I have to assume that the stories are apocryphal.

    That aside, though, what you're arguing in your comment is the regulation of attendance. That isn't the issue at hand. The churches I know, Methodist or not, have an unstated open attendance policy.

    Neither of your examples requires actual membership. The KKK could (and does) organize without UMC membership. Similarly, if a person wanted to make his/her ex-spouse uncomfortable as you describe, membership wouldn't be a necessity. He/She could just as easily harass by attending without membership, in which case I'd suggest that the person being harassed contact law enforcement and obtain a restraining order.

    What I wouldn't suggest is a policy whereby local pastors get to decide which people can attend his/her church. That's just a recipe for disaster, and antithetical to the mission of the United Methodist Church.

  • http://blog.mattalgren.com Matt Algren

    Hi Lee! Thanks for commenting.

    I did a (very) little digging this morning, and I can't find a first-hand account of the KKK thing. The closest I could find was a guy who knew a guy. Nothing at all on the harassing ex-husband. Until I hear from one of the principals in the incident, I'm afraid I have to assume that the stories are apocryphal.

    That aside, though, what you're arguing in your comment is the regulation of attendance. That isn't the issue at hand. The churches I know, Methodist or not, have an unstated open attendance policy.

    Neither of your examples requires actual membership. The KKK could (and does) organize without UMC membership. Similarly, if a person wanted to make his/her ex-spouse uncomfortable as you describe, membership wouldn't be a necessity. He/She could just as easily harass by attending without membership, in which case I'd suggest that the person being harassed contact law enforcement and obtain a restraining order.

    What I wouldn't suggest is a policy whereby local pastors get to decide which people can attend his/her church. That's just a recipe for disaster, and antithetical to the mission of the United Methodist Church.

  • Pingback: The Case for Methodist Amendment One: Rev. Eric Folkerth | Asterisk