God in Love Unites Us
June 30, 2021 10:23 AM   Subscribe

The Methodist Church in Britain allows same-sex marriage in 'momentous' vote: Following a half-decade of consultation, and in an overwhelming 254-46 vote in favour, the Methodist Church is now the largest religious denomination in Britain to support same-sex marriage.
posted by parm (15 comments total) 24 users marked this as a favorite
 
It’s a good thing, although it’s worth noting that not all congregations need to adhere to the decision. Still, they are light years ahead of the CoE….
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:38 PM on June 30, 2021


This makes me very happy. I was raised in the UMC in the US, and one of my best memories of London in 2001 is Palm Sunday services at Wesley’s Chapel followed by a walking tour with the church historian. Although I’m no longer religious, the split in the U.S. church over same-sex marriage in 2020 made me very sad. I’m no expert, of course, but I almost think the way it’s happening in England is better, with individual congregations being able to choose. That gives them room to cool off and come around.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 7:58 PM on June 30, 2021 [1 favorite]


If I can wear cotton/wool blends and not get on god's shitlist, and if I can eat a bacon cheeseburger without getting on god's shitlist, then two men can get fucking married without getting on god's shitlist.

Leviticus is not a fucking buffet. You don't get to pick and choose which beliefs you suddenly agree with. Either Jesus brought us a new covenant or a bunch of Christians need their foreskins clipped in a fucking hurry.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:28 PM on June 30, 2021 [4 favorites]


I don't think attempts to read the Christian bible as literally gay friendly are textually well justified, particularly given the parts of Romans, Timothy, and 1 Corinthians that are condemnatory. I think that these attempts add to the foolish and dishonest pretence that any living religion can rely upon a set of texts selected and compiled almost 2,000 years ago as the inerrant word of a deity by way of inspiration. There are parts of the New Testament which unambiguously condemn homosexuality. Crucially, however, those parts are stupid and wrong and Christians should acknowledge this and openly ignore them as such.

My grandfather was a Methodist lay preacher for most of his life, and one of the most knowledgeable and thoughtful theologians I've ever known. I have never met any straight person of his generation who hated homophobia more vehemently. It was, to him, as it should be to anyone who thinks about it, absurd and abhorrent to believe in a god who purports to love and sacrifice himself for humanity, and to place love as the highest of all virtues, while condemning billions of people to choose between earthly misery and spiritual sin on the basis of who they love. The Christian tradition, if it is to mean anything relevant, must openly affirm its commitment to the elements of its doctrine which have enduring value, and its concomitant deprecation of biblical passages that would render that doctrine absurd. My grandpa was fond of referring to the truth of Jack Spong's argument that Christianity must change or die, and was clear in his belief that any kingdom of heaven must start on Earth, now, or nowhere ever. These views were not easily won, given the cruel fanaticism of his upbringing, and he, like all honest people of faith who have been equipped to understand its implications, wrestled with confusion and doubt throughout his life. Such challenges cannot be read away: the Christian bible cannot be parsed as an unproblematic document. The burdens and pain of faith fall on those who have it, or seek it, and one of those burdens is opposing the conventional and stupefying comfort of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

I am glad that British Methodism is catching up with my grandpa over a decade after he died. He'd be happy about this, although I'm sure he'd still have plenty of criticisms of its progress towards becoming what he understood as truly Christian, almost as many as of his own progress on that path.
posted by howfar at 11:38 PM on June 30, 2021 [21 favorites]


Leviticus is not a fucking buffet.

Christians do not believe they are obligated to keep the Mosaic Law, like Orthodox Jews do. That was settled in apostolic times. But they do believe that the god who made a covenant with the Israelites through Moses on Mount Sinai is the very same god that is the God of Jesus. So they take the Torah -- including Leviticus -- seriously as a source for understanding God; what kind of person He is, what His values -- including moral values -- are, how He relates to human beings, et cetera. This means they are sifting and appraising the books of the Law in their reading of them to contribute to answering these sorts of questions, and some passages are going to seem more relevant to this general Christian concern than others. The stuff about ritual and liturgy may seem less necessary than that about ethics, for instance. And there will be different ways of reading specific Legal passages that lead to different conclusions about what they are about, which affects how their relevance to Christian life is seen.

So I'd say, yeah, but Leviticus is a buffet, kind of.

(I'm not a Christian myself, but as a sympathetic outsider I am always happy to hear news of the removal of impediments to Gay Christians living their faith. I have to imagine that having their church recognize their marriage as a sacrament is just tremendous.)
posted by bertran at 11:41 PM on June 30, 2021 [1 favorite]


Still, they are light years ahead of the CoE….

I'm sure they'd not be making those moves anyway, but aren't they literally forbidden by UK law from even considering it, due to the absurd way gay marriage was legislated?
posted by Dysk at 1:37 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]


To answer my own question: yes, at least according to Wikipedia.

Section 4 and Schedule 1.
Sets out the procedure by which religious organisations (except for the Church of England, the Church in Wales, the Quakers and the Jewish religion) can "opt in" to solemnise same-sex marriages in religious buildings.

posted by Dysk at 1:41 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]


Dysk, do you know why exceptions for Quakers and Jews were made in that law? The CoE I understand, it being a state church, but why specifically those two, too?
posted by trotz dem alten drachen at 2:45 AM on July 1, 2021


Section 5 sets out different rules for Quakers and Jews, but they can definitely opt-in. I'm guessing there's some practical/legal differences in the way marriages are solemnised by Quakers and Jews that requires special treatment by the Act.
posted by parm at 3:02 AM on July 1, 2021 [2 favorites]


Sorry, should have made that clearer: section 5 "[s]ets out the procedure by which the Quakers and the Jewish religion can "opt in" to solemnise same-sex marriages."

Not quite sure why they are special-cased, but I'm guessing it's to do with historically having some degree of authority to solemnise marriages which isn't/wasn't afforded to other religious organisations or faiths.
posted by Dysk at 3:05 AM on July 1, 2021 [1 favorite]


I'm guessing it's to do with historically having some degree of authority to solemnise marriages which isn't/wasn't afforded to other religious organisations or faiths.

Interesting! Apparently this exemption goes back to the Clandestine Marriages Act of 1753.
posted by trotz dem alten drachen at 5:31 AM on July 1, 2021 [3 favorites]


So, googling.... they're about 7 years behind the UK government, and nearly 20 behind UK public opinion?

It's infuriating that churches claim such moral authority while in practice being worse guides than a random person picked off the street.
posted by floppyroofing at 6:53 AM on July 1, 2021 [2 favorites]


Quakers and Jews don't have to solemnise marriages in religious buildings. Both the Quakers and Liberal Jews in principal allow same sex marriages under the same rules as opposite sex marriages. They, and British Unitarians, were the religious bodies who campaigned in support of same sex marriages before they were legal and specifically campaigned that the law should allow religious (rather than only civil) same sex marriages, in line with their beliefs.

It is excellent news that British Methodists have taken this step, but it will take time for this to filter down to actual buildings registered. I am an authorised person at my Unitarian congregation, and the paperwork was a bit of a faff, particularly as the local authorities were not quite sure what to do with a faith group that is both non-creedal (so no standard wedding service) and in actively clamouring to do same sex marriages. (Our building is kinda ugly so we haven't had all that many weddings in it.)
posted by plonkee at 11:44 AM on July 2, 2021 [3 favorites]


In a fun twist, some Quaker meetings in the UK started clearing marriages for same-sex couples well before same-sex marriage was recognised at all here, in what could be seen as that kind of quiet Quaker activism that seems to show up whenever their beliefs clash with the law. (See also: oaths, conscription, taxes used to fund wars, jury nullification...)
posted by avapoet at 12:40 AM on July 3, 2021 [3 favorites]


It feels less like Quaker activism is quiet and more like it's held at a constant sustained and sustainable volume. They're pretty much the one group you can guarantee will be at regular peace vigils, week after week after week, with embroidered banners which have been used and maintained through more such protests than should ever be necessary. That kind of dogged, even stubborn, insistence on scruple, seems to run to the root of (at least British) Quakerism: you just keep turning up and doing what faith asks, without demanding success or even progress. Of all the Christian communions I know of, it's the one that has always felt closest, to me, to that Kierkegaardian model of faith as an act of profound and overcoming will.
posted by howfar at 1:37 AM on July 3, 2021 [8 favorites]


« Older Where do bad links go when they die?   |   protecting outliers Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments