Responding to the Methodist Working Party on Marriage and Civil Partnerships Report

The second volume of the Methodist Church Annual Conference Agenda was published today. Within it were many important documents but there are a couple of particularly significant reports within it which are probably of interest to people beyond the Methodist Church. One relates to "Statistics for Mission" and the second is the report of the "WorkingParty on Marriage and Civil Partnerships." Within this post I am going to be reflecting on the latter of the two.

As I write this I have to outline my own position, for readers who may be new to this blog. I am a Methodist Local Preacher and member of a local fellowship who is writes this blog very much in a personal capacity. I am also a gay woman who is in a civil partnership with a female to male trans man currently going through gender reassignment. In line with the requirements of gaining a GRC we are planning to transfer our civil partnership to a marriage, because the legislation currently forbids us from keeping our civil partner status if my husband is to gain his gender recognition certificate. This is a personal response to the report and on that basis I make no apology for this post being subjective.

I want to start my response by paying tribute to the members of the working party. I know a couple of them, but the majority are unknown to me. Together they have produced a document which shows real sensitivity whilst coming to difficult conclusions.

I am personally disappointed by some of the conclusions reached within the report. However, in contrast to certain similar documents published by other denominations, this has been sensitively written and one cannot fault its apparent understanding of the issues involved. One example of this understanding is how the working group have drawn attention within the report to responses making reference to trans, intersex and bi exclusion.

Often reading such documents as a gay Christian I have been made to feel that we (gay Christians) are an unwelcome problem to be dealt with or that our feelings of dismay when reports such as this are published are not at all understood. This report didn't have that problem. Throughout it underlines the way it believes LGBTQI people should be treated by respect. Paragraphs 70-73 of the report outline there was dismay amongst the working party at the homophobic attitudes displayed by a small number of respondents to the public consultation. There is also a recognition of how disappointed some will be with the recommendations that the denomination should not to revisit the Methodist understanding of the meaning of marriage. The report refers to the way in which they might interpret them as not standing up for justice and rights of people whatever their sexuality.

Therefore one of the resolutions going to conference relates to clarifying what is and isn't homophobic language and instructing conference, if the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion unit think appropriate, to bring a formal statement to conference on the issue. I think this would potentially be very helpful for a wide range of institutions not just the church.

With regard to the discussion of what is and isn't acceptable language there was one section of paragraph73 which particularly stood out. It says: "There is a limit to what is acceptable and where that is over stepped it needs to be taken seriously in the same way that we as a Church have done in declaring that “racism is a denial of the Gospel."

 

The report methodology was clearly outlined and explained. In addition to a literature review there was the collation of quantitative and qualitative data. What I was pleased about was the way in which it was clear there was an emphasis on the qualitative data. This had involved a real listening process. The few quotes peppered through the report illustrated this. One of the criticisms levelled at the Church of England amongst other organisations is they have not really heard what is being said by LGBTQI people or their allies. This report demonstrates that both hearing and understanding have taken place.

 

The key recommendation in the report has been to institute a listening period of genuine "reflection and discernment" which will feed back to Conference in 2016. This may be seen by some as a delaying tactic, but I think in light of the announcements made by other denominations it was to be expected. What is slightly different to the responses of some other denominations is that the report put forward some serious ideas about how to help people engage with the issue.

The recommendations being voted upon at conference include the following which I feel has major significance if followed through:

"40/4. a) The Conference adopts the recommendation contained in paragraph 157 and appoints a task group on marriage and relationships to be responsible for the implementation of the work. It recognises the significance and therefore the need for adequate resourcing and support of this work.

b) The Conference directs that the tasks which the group shall work to implement shall be as follows:

(i) to seek to engage the Church more widely in exploring the two major themes of

i. living with contradictory convictions, and

ii. the nature of the authority of the Bible by drawing upon the existing material produced connexionally and identifying other ways of resourcing and encouraging these conversations throughout the Church;"

 

That resolution also proposes that the Conference should vote:

 "(iii) to explore in depth the implications arising from the divergence between the Methodist Church’s teaching on marriage and the legal definition and concept of marriage now applying in England, Wales and Scotland. These explorations should include

i. the missional challenges involved

ii. the tradition and experience of the Christian Church in living in contexts where its values, teaching and practice as to marriage have not been shared with those of the surrounding society

iii. the considerations for and against the continued involvement of the Methodist Church in the solemnization of (opposite sex) marriages;

(iv) to find ways to encourage Local Churches (and if thought necessary, equipping them with pastoral and teaching resources) to welcome same sex couples and their families and to enable their participation in the life and worship of the Church;

(v) drawing as appropriate upon the theological material already produced by the Faith and Order Committee and in collaboration with that committee, to develop resources to help people to explore the teaching and practice of the Church in relation to cohabitation"

  

The reasons I am encouraged by this resolution is that it comes out of the reports underlining of the fact to hold a different interpretation of the bible to others is not to deny the authority of scripture. It does acknowledge that some will disagree with seeing it in that way.

I am also particularly encouraged because the report as a whole and this resolution recognise the missional issues and problems which are connected with the position being put forward.

 

Too often I have found that LGBTQI people such as myself are accused of not caring about the bible (and of being liberals on this basis) and not caring about the gospel. I am an evangelical Christian who really does care about the authority of scripture and has a heart for mission. This report and recommendation allow for recognition of that whilst seeking to ensure those with more traditional interpretations are also heard and can feel listened to.

 

The door to changing understandings of marriage has not opened with this report, but the door has been opened for more in depth discussion as to whether civil partnerships should be celebrated within church and to wider discussions on family and relationships.

 

Very importantly the report and resolutions coming out of it are seeking to ensure that the measures protecting clergy as well as lay people in civil partnerships are extended to those within same sex marriages. There is also a resolution seeking to give provision for the protection of those who are already in same sex marriages should the main resolution not be passed. This is a significant difference to the CofE approach on the issue and one to be welcomed.

 

In the report and responses it is interesting to note the part the URC position at the moment has played. The URC have yet to report on their position and won't do so until after the Methodist Conference. They are one of the major partners to the Methodists. This looks as if it has had a positive impact on what has been proposed.

 

Amongst the international responses reported I was most interested in that from Uruguay given in paragraph 123. It explained because of their experience of living under a dictatorship that protection of all human rights was important to their church. This showed how within some countries there is an intersection between liberation theology and attitudes towards sexuality and gender issues.

 

I want to draw out of the report was that just before the closing date of the consultation there was a surge of responses as a result of online activism from those resisting change. These were taken into account but so was the way in which they altered the pattern of responses up to that point. This shows wise discernment by the group.

Finally, the breakdown of the statistics for the responses cannot be taken in isolation. The data they give has to be seen in relation to the wider statistics of the church, particularly those in those mission statistics I referred to at the beginning. The age distribution within the Methodist church and the attitudes of the different cultural and age groups need to be considered in light of that data and I believe the working group have to some extent done that. However, they have also recognised if that demographic data is to change some decisions which some older people may struggle with may need to be taken.

 

All in all whilst I believe this just one more frustrating step in a journey I wish were over, in some ways, it is also a very hopeful document. I hope that the recommendations including the one which would provide full on going protection for all same sex couples in marriages whether lay or ordained are passed. I look forward to engaging in the conversation and learning much from all positions in the listening process.