Bishop Sally Dyck endorses same-sex marriage proposal in Illinois

Bishop Sally Dyck of the UMC’s Northern Illinois Conference announced her support Jan. 10 for legislation to allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

“While the United Methodist Church holds that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching,” she wrote to conference members, “it also holds the teaching and a long tradition (albeit a struggle every inch of the way) of civil rights. Marriage equality is a civil rights issue; it provides for all what is afforded to some.”

Bishop Dyck noted that she’s not able to perform such a ceremony, or allow clergy under her supervision to do so, because of restrictions in the UMC’s Book of Discipline, or law book.

“But just because I can’t provide the service of marriage to same-sex couples doesn’t mean that I should prevent people from being able to commit their lives to each other in the State of Illinois,” she said.

Bishop Dyck’s statement yielded quick reaction within the UMC.

“She and other bishops, pastors and lay persons in the United Methodist Church who today support marriage equality for same sex-couples are to be congratulated rather than condemned.” said the Rev. Gil Caldwell, a retired UM pastor and longtime civil rights advocate, now living in New Jersey. “Why do we in our denomination continue to believe that exclusion of some rather than inclusion of all is an appropriate response to the inclusive love we have seen in Jesus?”

The Reconciling Ministries Network, an unofficial caucus within the UMC supporting gay rights, also praised Bishop Dyck.

“Reconciling Ministries Network applauds Bishop Dyck’s brave decision to support the rights of same-sex couples to get married,” said Randall Miller, interim executive director.

He added that the group wished she had also offered support for having same-sex marriage ceremonies in UM churches.

“We understand she’s trying in good faith to maintain her oaths to the United Methodist Book of Discipline,” Dr. Miller said. “We’re encouraged by her recent statements and actions.”

Good News, an unofficial caucus within the UMC that supports the church’s position on homosexuality, issued a statement expressing disappointment with Bishop Dyck. The group’s statement said in part:

“We respect Bishop Dyck and have worked well with her in the past in relating to the Unity Task Force of the Council of Bishops which she led.  However, we believe that for Bishop Dyck to advocate a minority position that is at odds with the stated position of the church fosters disunity and deepens the sense of disconnect felt by many United Methodist members. . . . We share Bishop Dyck’s commitment to ensure the protection of the civil rights of all persons.  However, there are other ways to ensure the civil rights of gay and lesbian persons without redefining the bedrock institution of marriage.  We see no reason why the church should allow a secular, anthropocentric, hyper-sexualized Western culture to tell us what marriage is, rather than looking to the Scriptures and, with real concern for the rights of all, maintaining what God has revealed.”

The UMC has, for four decades, had language in its Book of Discipline declaring that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Efforts to change that language, including at the 2012 General Conference, have all failed.

But many UM clergy have announced their support for same-sex unions, including more than 1,100 who signed pledges saying they would officiate at such ceremonies, despite church law prohibitions on that. Others in the church have urged the bishops to enforce the Book of Discipline against such clergy.

The Northern Illinois Conference petitioned the General Conference in 2011 to remove all discriminatory language about homosexuality from the Book of Discipline and to offer equal rights for all.

To date, nine U.S. states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage.

Here is Bishop Dyck’s statement in full:

To the Clergy and Members of the Northern Illinois Annual Conference.

Bishop Sally Dyck

January 10, 2013

Today the new General Assembly of the State of Illinois is expected to discuss and soon vote on the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act. It is expected that it will pass into law. I want to express my views on it and my support of it as law.

I believe in the institution of marriage as the source of emotional and legal stability and security for families and communities.

In May I will have been married for 37 years. I have many friends who are not presently married and have never married, but I believe most of them have wanted to find a lifelong relationship to which they are committed for spiritual, physical and emotional comfort and support.

And I have friends, acquaintances and former parishioners who have been in lifelong relationships with someone but have not been able to have their relationships recognized by the state or the church because they are in a same-sex relationship. In spite of all the same pressures and stresses that heterosexual couples face, they have managed to stay faithful and true to each other, providing stability and strength not only for their families but for their communities and churches.

Marriage also provides stability and security for me in a way that I usually take for granted, especially as both my husband and I grow older. We just assume that we can be with each other in the emergency room or that if, God forbid, something happens to the other that we will be provided for through our combined resources. After all, we’ve built those resources together over the last almost 37 years.

But same-sex couples can’t assume the same benefits, not even the benefit of being with each other should there be an emergency or in critical last moments to hold the other’s hand . . . No one should have to be getting permission to be by a loved one’s side at a time like that, but that is the reality for same-sex couples.

I believe in marriage because it also is the institution that best provides for the well-being of children. I believe that children need to have parents who have the emotional and legal benefits of marriage as well as parents who are active in their lives.

In addition to the benefits of marriage that I have described above, I also believe that the State of Illinois needs to be on the forefront (if #10 of 50 is the forefront) of providing for marriage equality in order to promote economic growth. People look for places to work and start businesses that will attract as many good workers, entrepreneurs and business people as possible and a marriage equality state can provide that added edge to the competitive economic market.

While the United Methodist Church holds that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, it also holds the teaching and a long tradition (albeit a struggle every inch of the way) of civil rights. Marriage equality is a civil rights issue; it provides for all what is afforded to some.

The marriage equality act in Illinois does not bind anyone who is licensed by the state to perform marriages to perform a marriage for a same-sex couple (as no one can bind us to perform a marriage for a heterosexual couple). In fact, even though I support this legislation, I can’t perform a same-sex marriage as a United Methodist clergy person and as the bishop I can’t give permission to any other clergy to do the same. But just because I can’t provide the service of marriage to same-sex couples doesn’t mean that I should prevent people from being able to commit their lives to each other in the State of Illinois.

Therefore, I believe it is to the benefit of our families, communities and the state of Illinois for the Marriage Equality Bill to become law in our state. Not all United Methodists will agree with my belief on marriage and they are entitled to their own belief. Because I believe in marriage, it’s my belief it will be a benefit for this law to pass.

Bishop Sally Dyck

Sam Hodges, Former Managing Editor, UMR

Sam Hodges

Sam Hodges was the managing editor of The United Methodist Reporter from 2011-2013. A formee reporter for the Dallas Morning News and the Charlotte Observer, Sam is a respected voice in United Methodist journalism.

Facebook LinkedIn 

Join the conversation....

  1. What happened to support and uphold the discipline of the church? . The book of discipline, carries no weight!!

  2. I would say absolutely unbelievable except for this scripture:

    Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.

    Acts 20:28-30

    We need to hold to the bedrock of Biblical truth and never, under any circumstances compromise that.

  3. Shameful. Her public advocacy is in violation of Para 2702.1(f) of the Discipline. It is a chargeable offense to disseminate doctrine contrary to the UMC.

  4. rjdex@aol.com says:

    Mrs. Sally Dyck, resident of a community of Northern Illinois, certainly has every right to have and make her opinion known and especially as she responses to her conscience. However, as Bishop, Sally Dyck, does not have an opinion contrary to the position of the UMC.

    When Sally Dyck ran for Bishop she promised that she would not subvert the church, when she accepted her election to the office of Bishop, she pledged to support The Book of Discipline. If she made her endorsement of the State of Illinois legislation as Bishop and signed her name as such she has abused the office.

    The office of Bishop is not her private property. Sally Dyck does not speak for the UMC. She doesn't represent the people of the UMC and she certainly does not have the right to make public statements leading people to believe in that deception.

  5. lindarugg says:

    God bless you, Bishop Dyck. The love of God will prevail, and some day the UMC will catch up.

  6. jeffreyconn says:

    Way to go, Bishop Dyck.

  7. Marriage as an "institution" provides for the well being of children. No where that I know of has the institution of marriage ever included whatever definition someone decided to change it to. It has always been between one man and one woman. To make the assumption that there are emotional benefits to children from same gender marriages as if it is all positive is quite a stretch. Having my Basset Hound around is very natural to my family, but if I choose to expect everyone around me condone unnatural physical contact/ conduct with it and then be beside myself when they don't, except for the few that think that is the best for a family is incredibly narcissistic.

    Next Annual Conference maybe the discussion should be changing the Book of Discipline to the Book of Do Whatever You Want.

  8. "Oh surely he wouldn't, said the serpent". As we look to our past we can all find injustices to God's people by God's people and yet as I look to the discussion I have to wonder why? Why are we trying to change the Discipline of a church that stands on a tradition of scripture? I am afraid that we a treading on thin ice.
    I feel that I can give in to the desires for legalized marriage between same sex couples as they need representation in all ways concerning couples. I desire that these couples also be represented in our churches but I falter when they want to force themselves into the pulpit of our congregations. Yes there are many already in these pulpits and as long as they preach the truth of the scriptures I am okay with it but when they force us to recognize them as homosexuals in the pulpit I separate myself. Help me to see the need for recognition. It seems to be about them rather than about God and His people. In my opinion we all have our cross to bear and we must follow that cross and stop playing with scripture to satisfy our own desires. Oh surely he wouldn't!!!

  9. If Good News truly “share[d] Bishop Dyck’s commitment to ensure the protection of the civil rights of all persons” it would be in the forefront of organizations advocating “ways to ensure the civil rights of gay and lesbian persons without redefining the bedrock institution of marriage.” Based on its track record, Good News has no such commitment. On the contrary, its unyielding commitment to keeping the civil definition of “marriage” tied to its religious definition shows Good News to be solidly in the camp of those who do not care that legal benefits—like the tax treatment of estates—and privileges—“No one should have to be getting permission to be by a loved one’s side at a time like [emergency rooms and end of life times]”—continue to be denied to same-sex couples.

    • I think that some of the issues are getting muddied in this debate, Wanting to defend the Biblical definition of marriage and the Biblical standards regarding homosexuality does not mean we are not sensitive to fairness for those who are gay and homosexual. There are already many avenues to address some of those concerns. Legal instruments such as powers of attorneys for property and healthcare, along with wills and estate planning documents can designate rights to parties. Hospitals have HIPPA documents which grant information and access to people who may not be legally related. There are laws which address discrimination. Now if these tools are not working or need to be added to or refined, so be it. I would imagine that if our energies were focused in that direction, we could actually see progress made not just for gays and homosexuals but for all of God's people. However, those of us who truly believe that a "marriage" is only between a man and a woman, we will not compromise that Biblical truth.

  10. According to Bishop Dyck's twisted logic, the UMC's biblical position on homosexuality is in opposition to civil rights. As such one can assume that civil rights is not biblical or the UMC's position is not biblical. Which is it? Of course, there is a middle option. After affirming the end goal of justice and civil rights, she then says that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. Perhaps that is the place where we should have the discussion? To what extent should the UMC publicly endorse a practice that is contrary to God's Word and our Discipline? For that matter, why would a bishop publicly support gay marriage when the UMC does not? At least she is no longer the DS in Mid-Ohio.

    • earthling says:

      Blessed are those of us old enough to remember The Methodist Episcopal Church and The Evangelical United Brethren Church before condemnation of non-heterosexual sons and daughters of Creator God was made official policy !!!!!!
      Surely, no one wants to "go back" to marriage as found in the Bible !! Daughters bought and sold, men having multiple wives and concubines, men being able to divorce their wives by simply announcing it.
      "Marriage" has changed over the ages. Did you know that the first instance of a religious marriage ceremony in the Christian church, as found in historical records in The Vatican, was a service for two men ??????
      Bishop Sally Dyck's logic is NOT "twisted." Scripture clearly reports the importance of loving God with all our heart, mind and soul, and loving others as ourselves. The legal (and financial) rights and duties that come with legal marriage are human rights for both heterosexual couples and gay and lesbian couples. Celebration and blessings in
      their place of worship is important to most heterosexual and same-gender couples. If we are as inclusive as Jesus,
      our Guide and Savior, we will correct our Book of Discipline and offer wedding ceremonies to all loving couples.
      The sky has not fallen in the States and Denominations where same-gender marriage is legal and honored in houses of worship.
      God makes some people non-heterosexual because God wants to, and does not ask those of us who are gay or
      lesbian to live alone all our lives…..without a loving companion…..never opening the "good gift of sexuality."

  11. methodistpie says:

    When the LGBTQ folks finally get their way (and I don't doubt they will), watch how fast those preaching "contrary doctrine" are drummed out of the church.

  12. marumley1@msn.com says:

    Is there any wonder why the UMC is in decline? God does not bless anything that is out of His will. When will the leaders in our UMC realize that they can not usurp God's authority. Promoting and condoning sin is flagrant disobedience to God's Word and Authority. REPENT!!

  13. jpfeagins says:

    Bishop Dyck also said “Serial relationships – whether they are heterosexual or homosexual – are a concern for me,” she said. I think they undermine the security and stability of our communities and of individuals ultimately.”

    Any divorced and remarried people feel thrown under the bus by that statement? How does she feel about the itinerant ministry?

    According to a study cited in the New York Times, half of existing gay marriages studied were open, consensually non exclusive, relationships.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.ht

  14. It is clear that the United Methodist Book of Discipline does not support her stance. Much more importantly, the Bible is clear on its view about homosexual relations.

    While I believe we are called to love everyone (love the sinner and hate the sin), I do not believe to do that we have to compromise our Biblical beliefs or condone sinful behavior. If the church does not follow solid Biblical principles, it will deteriorate. It is clear that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 says homosexual sex is an abomination and detestable sin. It goes on to say, “Do not practice homosexuality." Romans 1:26-27 asserts that homosexual desires and actions are shameful, unnatural, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 also addresses this issue along with other sinful behaviors. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful. Additionally, whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female.

    While we are all sinners, we must continue to strive through the power of the Holy Spirit to live our lives by the Godly principles outlined in His Word. The issue of homosexuality is not an ambiguous one. The various issues which accompany homosexuality should not muddy the waters of God's Word on homosexuality. It is clearly defined in the Bible.

    Bishop Dyck's comments also speak to the support she has received from people with no religious affiliation. On what authority is their support credited? Are we trying to increase church attendance by diluting Biblical principles and becoming more worldly? That is a sad commentary as to standing on God's principles. This type of dialogue in any church grieves me. Where will this type of liberal/progressive and worldly approach lead? Will we become gray about our stance on life and abortion, too?

    I pray, as Christ followers, that the love of Christ will shine through us, that we will see His Will clearly, and boldly proclaim His Truth so that we may be examples of the morality God desires.

  15. Everytime something comes up within the United Methodist Church such as how we are to treat others and how those
    of us who do call ourselves United Methodists are to respond, I search the scriptures first and I also find an applicable sermon given by our founder, John Wesley. In scripture homesexuality is condemed, period! Jesus told the woman, "neither do I condemn you, but GO AND SIN NO MORE. Jesus knew what she had done and did not condem her, but He also told her not to do it anymore. That should be our response. I would also like to reference two sermons given. The first is: Sermon 80 dealing with "Friendship with the World" and sermon 45 on "The New Birth".
    If our bishop was to read both of these sermons as well as those who lead our church, maybe this would no longer be an issue. Bishop Dyck needs to be put on notice and if she can't perform her duties then maybe she needs to move on instead of being the "leven" in the loaf.

  16. You missed the entire point of what Bishop Dyck said; she is upholding and obeying the UMC Discipline, and requiring the clergy of NIC to do likewise. The Bishop was giving her opinion of the law in the State of Illinois in regards to same sex marriage, and supporting the "rights" of those who choose to do so. I suggest you go back and read her statement.

Trackbacks

  1. […] lost no time in challenging the Church’s stance in practice.  Bishop Sally Dyck issued a statement supporting civil manifestations of same-sex marriage, and Bishop Talbert began actively encouraging […]

Your thoughts?

applications-education-miscellaneous.png
The United Methodist Reporter wants to encourage lively conversation about The United Methodist Church and our articles in the belief that Christian conversation (what Wesley would call conferencing) is a means of grace. While we support passionate debate, we cannot allow language that demeans or demonizes others, and we reserve the right to delete any comment we believe to be harmful or inappropriate. We encourage all to remember that we are all broken and in need of Christ's grace, and that we all see through the glass darkly until that time we when reach full perfection in love. May your speech here be tempered with love, and reflection of the fruits of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. After all, "There is no law against things like this." (Galatians 5:22-23)
 

*

Google+
%d bloggers like this: