(Article originally written and translated from Danish website located here. Some translation errors are likely present)

The Methodist Church in Denmark adopted at its annual conference in May an inquiry to the Judicial Council where the conference asked for a “Declatory Decision” on the question of the legality of the sentence which in 1972 was added to the Book of Discipline section 161.7: ” … that homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching.”

Jørgen Thaarup proposed the below inquiry to Judicial Council. The final formulation process as mentioned these days, but the inquiry will content not differ much from the following:

The Denmark Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church appeals to the Judicial Council to make a declaratory ruling on the legality of the sentence added to the BoD § 161. 7) “… and consider this practice Incompatible with Christian teaching.”

The rational for the appeal is the following:

“Christian teaching” we under stand as a synonymous wording of Christian Doctrine, our theological position According to our standards of confession. The Constitution § 3 defines the doctrinal standards of The United Methodist Church, naming both the Articles of Religion and the Confession of Faith. The Constitution § 17 and § 18 states the restrictive rules That the General Conference shall not change our doctrinal standards of the Articles of Religion and the Confession of Faith, neither shall the General Conference add any new standards or rules of doctrine.

In the Bod § 102 we find our history of doctrinal standards, and we find our understanding of our theological task. “Doctrinal statements in the form of creeds, confessions of belief, and articles of faith were officially adopted by churches as standards of Christian teaching.” Our distinctive heritage as The United Methodist church is inspired by the Christian teaching contained in the Standard Sermons of John Wesley and the liturgical formative texts, the hymnal and Sunday Service, wooden are Also- resources in doctrinal positions of The United Methodist Church. The Bod § 102 is the place in the Storeroom where the wording “Christian teaching” is most exceptionally and defined. The Bod § 103 ends with a clarification of the “standards or rules of doctrine” THUS continues to be restricted before the presentation of the Articles of Religion in Bod § 104.

For the still Ongoing interpretation of our theological position in any new hour the BoD § 105 presented the so called Quadrilateral as a Methodist Theological Method. This method of overusing the Scripture, the Tradition, the Experiences and the Reason as instruments and sources for new theology is never in the BoD Understood as to be in contrast to the Articles of Religion or the Confession of Faith or two add any new position. The description of the Theological Task in the future is not in conflict with the restrictive rules of the Constitution Defining and upholding our doctrinal standards, our standards of Christian teaching.

The question of homosexuality is not addressed in the doctrinal standards of The United Methodist Church. The question of homosexuality is not a question of doctrinal standards or standards of faith. The homosexuality is addressed in the Social Principles, and the preface to the Social Principles states that “the Social Principles are not to be considered church law.” While stated that the Social Principles are not to be considered church law, this statement Consignor gives the Social Principles a character of inspiration and guidelines for faith praxis, but not a law text or a new standard for interpretation of the law texts of the BoD.

The question of homosexuality is not addressed in our standards of Christian Teaching, defined and restricted in the Constitution, it is not a question of Standards of Faith, and it is not in conflict with the standard of confession we have in the Constitution and in the text of theological heritage and future.

The sentence added to the BoD § 161. 7) “… and Consider this practice Incompatible with Christian teaching” is unconstitutional.

All other places in the BoD where the wording is added “… practice Incompatible with Christian teaching” are unconstitutional.

Share This