Mary had a baby!

"Mary Had a Baby" is the name of an old spiritual. It's also a tune that may be hummed in the Cheney household . Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of the Vice President of the United States, is having a baby with her partner Heather Poe. The Christian Right is, of course, outraged that while there is, no doubt, a sperm donor, there will be no father in this household. Soulforce very helpfully points out that mainstream science would predict that a child raised in the Cheney-Poe household will do very nicely even if she/he may confront from time to time some angry members of the Christian Right.

Same-Gender Marriage--a Heterosexual Invention?

It is now not quite two months since Jim and I were legally wed at the City Hall in Toronto. I've already posted on this blog the homily which I composed for that wedding service. Although the City Hall ceremony is a "civil ceremony" there was a tremendous amount of freedom to craft the service to suit the couple. We chose to use the wedding rite found in the United Methodist Book of Worship. It's a very Episcopalian-like service containing lots of well-crafted prayers. I did some very light editing, but was pleasantly surprised to discover that very little editing was required to remove either sexism or heterosexism.

The familiar introduction of the service refers to the Bible story of Jesus' attendance at the wedding feast at Cana--a story in which "bride and groom" play no part except as the excuse to party! There is also a reference to the biblical analogy that compares the relationship of Christ and the Church to the relationship of husband and wife, but in the modernized United Methodist rite there is absolutely no reference to gender differences between husband and wife, for example nowhere in the rite is there a statement that the husband is "head" of the wife as Christ is the "head of the church."

Someone has already pointed out that modern marriage has already been changed by modern heterosexuals who have removed the gender differences between husband and wife. With these gender differences removed there is no longer any reason to deny marriage to same-gender couples. Heterosexuals, in effect, created "gay marriage," long before gay people began to take advantage of it.

Here is the "Greeting" from the beginning of our wedding service:

Friends, we are gathered together in the presence of the God to witness and bless the joining together of James and Steven in Christian marriage. The covenant of marriage was established by the Creator, who made humanity for companionship. With his presence and power Jesus graced a wedding at Cana of Galiliee and in his sacrificial love gave us the example for the love of one spouse for another. James and Steven come to give themselves to one another in this holy covenant.

And here is the "Prayer of Thanksgiving" from the conclusion of the service--a prayer which I especially liked:

Most gracious God, we give you thanks for your tender love
in making us a covenant people through our Savior Jesus Christ and for consecrating in his name the marriage covenant of James and Steven. Grant that their love for each other may reflect the love of Christ for us and grow from strength to strength as they faithfully serve you in the world.
Defend them from every enemy.
Lead them into all peace.
Let their love for each other
be a seal upon their hearts,
a mantle about their shoulders,
and a crown upon their heads.
Bless them in their work and in their companionship;
in their sleeping and in their waking,
in their joys and in their sorrows;
in their lives and in their deaths.
Finally, by your grace, bring them and all of us to that table where your saints feast for ever in your heavenly home;
through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with you and the Holy Spirit
lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Amen and Amen!

General Conference Delegates

Here's an interesting commentary on the election of General Conference delegates and the way the United Methodist Church is governed. Does this suggest some reforms? For instance, should we forbid "giving anything of value" to General Conference delegates by groups seeking to "lobby" and "buy votes" from delegates? Can we provide delegates from poor countries with adequate support through "nonpartisan" General Conference sources and forbid the use of money to influence votes? African delegates do not have to live under the same Discipline as U.S. United Methodists--non-U.S. conferences have the freedom to modify their own Disciplines, why can't U.S. Jurisdictions have the same freedom?

How about the direct election of lay delegates to General Conference? This would be like the reform that occurred in the U.S. government in the early 20th century (during the Progressive Movement) when we changed the U.S. Constitution to allow the direct election of U.S. Senators, taking those elections out of the hands of State Legislatures. Somehow we could put the names of candidates for lay delegations before all local church members and not just the Lay Members of Annual Conferences.

Republicans aren't gay bashers?

Yesterday on FOX news Newt Gingrich excused House Republicans for their failure to discipline or investigate Florida Congressman Mark Foley when it first became apparent that he was having inappropriate contacts with pages. Gingrich said the GOP doesn't want to be accused of "gay-bashing."

This remark should take the prize for the most ironic and absurd statement of the year. The GOP has actively worked for years to achieve its reputation for "gay bashing." "Gay bashing" is one of their top policy objectives. Just look at GOP efforts around the country to pass legislation barring same-gender marriage.

Newt Gingrich's remark itself is another example of "gay bashing" in that he wants to turn an issue of criminal exploitation of minors into a "gay issue"--the same game the Vatican is playing in their pedophile priest scandals.

Look, the issue was never one of sexual orientation. The issue is one of sexual exploitation of minors. Foley should have been investigated and disciplined. He should have been investigated in a bipartisan manner. Instead the GOP, not wanting to endanger an otherwise safe GOP seat, engaged in cover-up. Now the truth begins to come out at the worst possible time--when will they ever learn?

Yes, We Got Married

The marriage and honeymoon were fabulous. We had a civil ceremony in the Toronto City Hall, but we used a slightly revised wedding rite from the United Methodist Book of Worship. Below is the homily I wrote for the service. (The homily was read by one of our Toronto friends who served as one of the legal witnesses).

Homily from the Marriage Service of

Steven E. Webster and James E. Dietrich

City Hall, Toronto, Ontario, September 1, 2006

Scholars tell us that our Bible preserves traces of an even older literature, written in cuneiform--small wedges pressed into wet clay tablets and baked hard. The oldest written epic known to humanity is The Epic of Gilgamesh the King. In that tale a goddess observes the loneliness of Gilgamesh and, taking clay, she fashions for him a companion, Enkidu. Together they join in many brave adventures and remain loyal companions until parted by death. In our Bible their love song was preserved in these verses from Ecclesiastes:

"Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up the other; but woe to one who is alone and falls and does not have another to help. Again, if two lie together, they keep warm; but how can one keep warm alone? And though one might prevail against another, two will withstand one. A threefold cord is not quickly broken." (Ecclesiastes 4: 9-12, NRSV)

James and Steven, we join today in the celebration of your loving commitment to one another. You have demonstrated the strong bonds that have held you together for over twenty-five years. You have been through good times and bad. You have supported one another in sickness and health. You have nurtured children, and you love a grandchild. Like Gilgamesh and Enkidu, you have joined together in many adventures and have prevailed against strong adversaries.

Your marriage is not for you alone. Marriage is a public act. By your marriage you witness to others the love which is at the core of all true human community. When humankind was made, the Creator said, "It is not good that the human should be alone" and companionship was born. Christ came to the world to redeem human community, and the Spirit still moves among us breathing life into that community.

The love you share is not for you alone. Your love for one another is a sign and a blessing for all who know you.

Here we are in Toronto!

Jim and I arrived in Toronto last night. We're seeing the city today. Finalizing our wedding arrangements for tomorrow. By 3:00 tomorrow we'll be legally wedded spouses!

Gay Pride brings on End Times!

Friends,

I kid you not! Agape Press, an online press service sponsored by Don Wildmon's right-wing Christian American Family Association is crediting a gay pride event in Jerusalem with triggering the current Israeli/Hezbollah conflict, Armageddon and the End of the World!

A little comic relief while I continue to study Bishop Whitaker's paper (see recent posts).

Did I Misunderstand Bishop Whitaker?

Friends,
I'm appreciative of reader comments. This comment from Jonathan merits some consideration:

I think you are misunderstanding Bishop Whitaker's comments. I think the bishop is saying that before we are homosexual or heterosexual, we are all made in God's image. The fact that we are all made in God's image and are God's beloved children is infinitely more important than whether we are homosexual or heterosexual. Bp. Whitaker in no way implies that homosexuals are not created in the image of God.

Admittedly, Whitaker's writing is complex and not easily understood. However, it seems that the word "heterosexual" does not present the same problem for Whitaker as the words "homosexual," "gay" or "lesbian." Can it be that the Bishop can see heterosexuals as in the image of God, but there is something about gays and lesbians that gets in the way of Christians seeing God's image in their lesbian and gay sisters and brothers?

Bishop Whitaker writes a little later:

The traditional Christian view is that turning same-sex attraction into an erotic desire and practicing sexual acts with a person of the same sex are contrary to God’s purposes for human beings. However, this orthodox view can be used as a religious sanction for loathing and fear of those who experience same-sex attraction. Christians should not use the orthodox position as a cover for hatred and fear. Nor should those who disagree with the orthodox view consider those who accept it as bigots or persons who oppose having friendships with homosexuals or the human rights of homosexuals. Christians should always remember that persons who experience same-sex attraction are created in God’s image and possess dignity and human rights.

The Bishop states the problem clearly--the things that a married gay couple might do together in the privacy of their own home "are contrary to God's purposes for human beings," that is, according to the "traditional Christian view." And beginning from this "orthodox position" some Christians go on to express "hatred and fear." They do not "always remember that" gay people "are created in God's image." It seems that the word "heterosexual" doesn't present this problem, and so the Bishop does not suggest we eliminate the word "heterosexual" from our vocabulary.

The Bishop would like to eliminate the words "homosexual," "gay" and "lesbian" because he would like to dissect gay people into at least three pieces: 1) same-sex attraction, 2) same-sex erotic desire, 3) same-sex sexual acts. After dissecting these three parts, he'd like to get rid of a piece or two. The question the good Bishop does not address is whether the patient in this spiritual surgery is likely to survive the operation. I believe that there is ample testimony that many such a patient has died on the operating table. I'm not being all that metaphorical either, when one considers that gay and lesbian people have committed suicide because of the unbearable conflict between their lesbian and gay identity and their (or their family's) religious faith community.

Now, I am not saying the good Bishop is a bad man who wants to hurt people. Clearly he is not. But I believe the Bishop is misinformed about a thing or two. The Bishop knows that the church has been mistaken about a thing or two in its teaching in the past, and mistaken as well about what the Bible requires us to do. The Bishop knows that change is possible for the church too. I would hope that he will eventually see that the church needs to change its understanding of the Bible and church teachings about gay and lesbian persons.

Bishop Timothy Whitaker and Spiritual Violence

I want to take a little more time to respond to this article by Bishop Timothy Whitaker who is the United Methodist Bishop of the Florida Annual Conference. (See previous recent entries for my initial responses.)

The Bishop begins with a lengthy section on "Language" in which he expresses his desire to remove the words "homosexual," "gay" and "lesbian" from our vocabulary before we even begin the discussion. The Bishop writes:

The main reason I prefer to refer to someone as a person who experiences same-sex attraction rather than as a “homosexual” or “gay” or “lesbian” is because this way of speaking is more fitting for the church, which views all people as persons created in the image of God. That is, the church views our identity in terms of our relationship to God, not in terms of our sexual identity. Once the church succumbs to the idea that our basic identity is sexual rather than theological in nature, then the church has already lost its way in the discussion. This is not to say that our sexual being in unimportant, but it is to say that it is more appropriate for the church to first view people as persons who are created in the image of God before it says anything about their sexual identity.

I believe this is Bishop Whitaker's first act of spiritual violence in this article. "Gay" and "lesbian" are important words to us. These are the words that give us, as lesbian and gay people, our identity. Many of us in the years before 1969 and the beginning of the contemporary lesbian and gay movement grew up in families with heterosexual parents in a heterosexual world where the words "homosexual," "lesbian" and "gay" were never even spoken. We did not know who we were. We just knew that we were strangely different from our peers. Many of us felt isolated. We felt "I'm the only one in the world who feels like this." We were oppressed and depressed, sometimes to the point of not wanting to live at all. It was a tremendous experience of revelation and spiritual liberation when we first went to a gathering of "out" lesbian and gay persons, or when we first read a book relating the experiences of other gay or lesbian persons. This is how we discovered, affirmed and embraced our identity, the identity that was suppressed and hidden from us for so long.

Whitaker implies that one cannot simultaneously view someone as gay or lesbian and as a human being in the image of God. This is near the crux of our disagreement. Historically, those in dominant positions in our culture have viewed the image of God to be represented as white rather than black or male rather than female. Like racism and sexism, heterosexism views only heterosexuals as reflecting the image of God. Bishop Whitaker succumbs to a common misreading of the Bible that attributes the "image of God" only to human beings before the entry of sin in the world when a mythological Eve shared a mythological forbidden fruit with a mythological Adam (the mythological "Fall of Humanity"). In actuality the Bible nowhere speaks of the image of God being marred in human beings. Indeed, after the "Fall" the Bible speaks of human beings as continuing to bear the image of God and forbids murder on that basis. (See Genesis 9:5-6) Whatever "image of God" means, it does not to refer to God-like moral perfection, but it does refer to the respect and dignity due every human being, a quality which all human beings share without exception.

To mythologically deny any human being the "image of God" is biblically impermissable.

Whitaker's article is lengthy, and I am not done with it yet. My next effort will be to examine Whitaker's use of a passage in Ephesians in his argument that there is some deep theological basis supporting the church's heterosexism.

And, before I publish this, let me add a note about "spiritual violence." I have charged the Bishop with spiritual violence, and I stand by that. But I want to clarify that I do not believe the Bishop wishes anyone any harm. The root cause of his spiritual violence is ultimately misinformation--a condition from which all human beings suffer. As Christians and human beings we need one another to overcome our own blind spots and misinformation. Together we can overcome spiritual violence, which is the real enemy, not our brother or sister human being.

I'm Back from Colorado Springs!

I'm back from Colorado Springs. It was both a fun vacation and an opportunity to do some good by volunteering to bring off another Soulforce action at James Dobson's Focus on the Family. We had the opportunity to hear a concert by Billy Porter. Here is a link to an Advocate article in which Billy Porter describes the spiritual violence he experienced from the church in which he was raised.

Response to Bishop Whitaker from Miami Beach Pastor

Friends,
Again, I am still at a campground in Colorado Springs with limited access to a computer station. I want to share an excellent response to Florida United Methodist Bishop Whitaker from a Florida U.M. Pastor. I'll have more to say later.


An Open Letter Responding to Florida’s Bishop Timothy
Whitaker’s “The Church and Homosexuality”
(for Bishop Whitaker's original article go to:
http://www.flumc2.org/page.asp?PKValue=967 )

St. John's on the Lake First United Methodist Church,
Miami Beach
The Rev. Dr. L. Annette Jones, Pastor
July 21, 2006

Bishop Whitaker:

I appreciate that you are seeking to further the
discussion of the church and homosexuality with
dignity and civility. Your conclusion that Christian
tradition can change through a new illumination of
God’s complete revelation in Jesus Christ contained in
scripture is more than sufficient to move us ever
closer to the pure and simple light of God.

I understand your effort to find a neutral word to
describe what you call the ‘phenomenon’ of
homosexuality. And I agree that words are very
important as we attempt to resolve these complex
issues. So much so that even the use of the word
‘phenomenon’ to describe the ‘experience’ of persons
who identify as homosexual runs the risk of
objectifying such persons and placing ‘them’ into a
separate category, over against ‘the rest of us’ or
‘normal’ people. Objectifying and separating persons
into ‘us’ and ‘them’ is not a helpful activity if our
goal is to reach resolution or understanding or even
live in harmony within community. Rather, such
language is often the first step in dehumanizing the
‘enemy’ on the way to war, which is where the UMC
appears to be in regard to homosexuality.

Your ‘nature’ argument runs the same risk of valuing
‘normal’ people more than persons who fall outside the
norm. This way of thinking has been demonstrated by
both history and ethicists to be a slippery slope. The
extreme of this thinking has taken more than one
unfortunate person to the length of trying to
exterminate all who do not fit his definition of the
ideal person.

So anything we can do to identify with one another and
find common ground should help our situation. You
point out that all people share a common humanity that
is of sacred worth to God, i.e., that in Christ there
is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, etc. This
places all persons on a level playing field no matter
what his or her ‘accident of birth’, as does the
protestant maxim ‘faith alone’, ‘grace alone’. This
is an appropriately modest and humble stance in the
face of a ‘nature’ that is more complex than any human
has mastered to date.

And you rightly point to the reality that each of us
in the church is a person whose primary relationship
is with God and that it is this relationship with God
that defines us, not our sexuality. Yet, I fail to see
how it matters which term you use as a qualifier to
the term ‘persons’. ‘Persons who experience same-sex
attraction’ as well as ‘persons who identify as
homosexual’ each put the emphasis on the reality that
all human beings are persons first and of sacred
worth, as you say so well.

I am concerned that your choice of ‘same-sex
attraction’ as a referent for all intimate love
relationships between persons of the same sex and as a
substitute for ‘homosexual’ fails to capture or
communicate the complete human experience you seek to
discuss. Sexual attraction is but one aspect of the
love relationship between persons of the same sex,
though it is an important component. The same is true
in the complex love relationships enjoyed by men and
women. The term ‘same sex attraction’ reduces this
complex love relationship to merely one aspect, the
erotic.

Further, research has shown that many people,
including persons who identify as heterosexual,
experience erotic attraction to persons of the same
sex. Even though a person identifies as heterosexual,
his or her attraction to persons of the same sex
contributes to the complex experience each of us knows
as ‘loving and being in love’.

For example, the depth psychology of Carl Jung is
predicated on the theory that all men have an
unconscious ‘anima’ or feminine component that is
critical in shaping each man’s identity and way of
being in relationships. Conversely, all women have an
unconscious ‘animus’ or masculine component. Most
people’s gender identity is a complex play of
‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ dynamics. The same is
true for persons who identify as homosexual.

If Jung is correct, that persons who identify as
heterosexual AND persons who identify as homosexual
all experience some degree of same-sex AND
opposite-sex attraction could be a major reason why
the topic of homosexuality is so ‘charged’. The
stronger and more ‘unconscious’ a person’s same-sex
attraction is, the more threatening it could be to the
ego. This perceived threat could stimulate the ego to
defend itself, thereby producing extreme and
irrational reactions to persons who are openly,
overtly and consciously homosexual.

I see that your use of the narrow term same-sex
attraction allows you to segregate ‘same-sex
attraction’ from ‘erotic desire’. I understand that
this helps you further your argument. However, there
are very few people who could actually distinguish
‘same-sex attraction’ from ‘erotic desire’ within
their own human experience. Persons who could do this
would be truly exceptional. And to expect this of the
average person would be unrealistic.

By contrast, the distinction between ‘being erotically
attracted’ to someone and ‘acting on’ that attraction
is more readily apparent. As a person develops impulse
control, she or he cultivates the ability to make this
distinction. However, the dynamics involved in moving
from erotic attraction to acting on that attraction
are indeed complex and are further complicated by the
fact that part of this process includes ‘losing ones
mind’ so to speak. That is to say that at some point
in the consummation of sexual attraction, the erotic
bypasses our rational mind and we surrender to a pure,
direct experience. This experience is not unlike
certain ecstatic spiritual experiences described by
mystics such as St. Theresa of Avila.

This erotic experience with another person is often an
important part of opening to full and complete
surrender to God and is the main reason why the
mandate that persons who identify as homosexual remain
celibate is such a serious spiritual issue. It is why
some call this expectation an inordinate burden and
even cruel. In other words, for most people the
consummation of erotic attraction is a critical step
in transforming eros into agape.

I have a problem with your use of Henri Nouwen as, not
only an example, but an ideal of how persons who
identify as homosexual should transform eros into
agape. The reality of Nouwen’s life as presented by
his biographer, Michael Ford, paints a portrait of a
man who suffered, who knew anguish as he struggled
with himself and embraced the journey that was his
unique life. Early in his life at Menninger, Nouwen
wrestled with his homosexual leanings, which at that
time he regarded as a disability and a cross to bear.
During his time at Harvard, he was tough on students
who were gay, telling them that homosexuality was an
evil state of being.

As his life unfolded and he became seasoned by the
reality of his life, Nouwen opened himself to
friendships with many persons who identified as
homosexual. Some encouraged him to go public. Other
friends cautioned that if he revealed his secret he
would lose credibility as a spiritual mentor and
authority on the inner life of the spirit among his
Catholic following. This possibility of being rejected
if people knew about his sexual orientation troubled
Nouwen greatly. "This took an enormous emotional,
spiritual and physical toll on his life and may have
contributed to his early death," Ford says. (Wounded
Prophet by Michael Ford)

Before he died in 1996, Nouwen became more vocal in
his support of persons who identify as homosexual,
saying they had a "unique vocation in the Christian
community."
I have never read that he lifted himself up as an
ideal of how persons who are homosexual should order
their lives. I have read that he understood celibacy
to be a calling, just as is priestly ministry, and not
for everyone.

In light of the anguish and inner turmoil that an
exceptional person with a superior spiritual capacity
like Henri Nouwen went through as he sought to come to
terms with the reality of his own
psysio/psycho/spritual being, why would you assume
that God would ask celibacy of a whole group of people
who most certainly do not all share his spiritual
capacity? Surely you would not suggest this just
because they happen to share in common an erotic
attraction to persons of the same sex. Is this not an
unreasonable and unrealistic expectation and does it
not act as a stumbling block to such persons’
spiritual unfolding?

I am reminded that Jesus warned the experts in the law
to not put burdens on people too heavy for them to
bear because God does not do this.

“One of the experts in the law answered Jesus,
"Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us
also." Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe
to you, because you load people down with burdens they
can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one
finger to help them.” Luke 11:45-46

Wouldn’t expecting all persons who are homosexual to
be celibate be as contrary to Christ’s teachings as it
would be to expect all persons who are heterosexual to
be celibate? Celibacy is not only an inordinate burden
for those who are not called by God to it, but it is
also a stumbling block to spiritual growth.

Further, by reducing the purpose of marriage to
procreation, you fail to appreciate the important role
marriage can play in a person spiritual unfolding. It
is my understanding that from a spiritual perspective
marriage is a full and complete relationship between
two people, the center of which is Christ. Each
person’s primary relationship is with Christ and the
relationship with another serves:
1. as a vehicle to communicate God’s pure, unbounded
love to each other
2. as a starting point for the couple to be in service
to the world, beginning with their children, if they
have children
3. to help identify and reduce selfishness and
self-centeredness in each member of the family, which
can be understood to be the root obstacle that blocks
the pure and simple light of God from shining through
one’s life.

A lifetime of intentional relationship with another
human being can do much to expose and free one from
this obstacle and help each one bear witness to God’s
love and power and way of life.

So, if the expectation that all persons who are
homosexual should be celibate can properly be
understood to be an inordinate burden for those who
are not called by God to celibacy (that celebrated
pragmatist, St. Paul said that it is better to marry
than to burn), what would it mean to ‘lift a finger to
help them?’

I have been convicted for years that the church is
remiss for not providing a means by which the
relationships of person who identify as homosexual can
be understood as a vehicle for spiritual growth and
ordered within our community of faith in a way that
reflects the relationship between Christ and the
church. This is our spiritual duty. We have failed in
this duty to date.

Following the pragmatism of St. Paul, it is a fact
that relationships between persons of the same sex do
exist against all odds and at great personal cost to
most.* Such relationships existed long before
cultural acceptance was even an option. Many such
persons are crying out to be treated humanely and with
dignity by not only the culture, but by the church. At
the present time, such persons receive no spiritual
guidance from the UMC that recognizes their reality.

There is dissonance within a church whose doctrine
excludes persons who are homosexual but whose
Episcopal teaching advocates inclusion at the level of
the local church as you have done. This again divides
the faithful into two classes of the baptized and
leads to no good for anyone.

I know that some relationships between persons of the
same sex ARE defined solely by erotic attraction and
sexual activity. Such relationships reinforce
selfishness and self-centeredness, just as do similar
heterosexual relationships, and they should be
recognized as such by the church.

However, it is important to acknowledge that many love
relationships between persons of the same sex do not
reinforce bondage to self but serve as a proximate
means to spiritual liberation as I have described
earlier. If the church would ‘lift its finger’ and
provide guidance to all persons who are homosexual, as
it does to persons who are heterosexual, and make
available to everyone equally the means of grace and
the love and support and encouragement of Christian
community and give realistic and reliable spiritual
guidance to those who are seeking this from the
church, then could we not trust God with the results
of each person’s transformation in God’s time, in
God’s way? Couldn’t we trust God with whatever is good
and right and possible for each one? And could we not
refrain from acting as though we know what that would
look like for each person? And could we not refrain
from judging the value of such transformation and
learn to celebrate each transformation as a work of
the Holy Sprit in each person’s life? Shouldn’t we be
comparing ourselves to ourselves within the light of
Christ instead of comparing ourselves to some ideal
that leaves most, if not all of us defensive and in a
state of not being ‘good enough’? How can it be ‘good
news’ for a person to know that her or his love
relationship is reason to be denied full inclusion in
the life of the church?

If we spent as much time seeking the spiritual gift of
‘discernment’ as we do making church laws that
marginalize persons who identify as homosexual, we
would be quite well equipped to recognize the powerful
and fresh liberating work of the Holy Spirit in the
lives of the faithful, no matter what her or his
sexual identity.

* the argument that is usually offered here is that
murderers exist but we don’t condone murder. A
murderer is one who has deprived another person of
their life by killing them. A person who loves
another person of the same sex shares nothing in
common, by virtue of their sexual identity, with a
person who has killed someone. Such logic does not
hold.

Bishop Whitacker & "Culture"

I have a short time to blog at a campground workstation with a 30 minute limit. I'm using this little window of time to look at one aspect of a piece just published by Bishop Timothy Whitaker

Years ago I had a professor in a course on Ancient Religion and the Early Church who was a sweet, old Episcopalian gentleman. In one lecture he was making fun of the way the word "culture" had been shaped into a technical term by social scientists. His comment to us about what "culture" really means was this: "culture is not eating peas with a knife."

Bishop Whitacker talks a good bit about culture towards the end of his piece. Whitaker seems to adopt what has become a common place amongst some church thinkers these days--namely that "culture" is something that Christians oppose. Probably the best example supporting their view was the horrible mistake many Christian leaders and theologians made in Nazi Germany when they went along with Naziism and formed a state church in support of Hitler's program.

It seems to me that the church can never be satisfied with any present culture until we achieve the Kingdom of God. With Wesley, I believe that God calls us to work for the reform of our culture until the world conforms more and more to the ideal of the Kindom of God--or, a better term than "Kingdom of God" was one used by Martin Luther King, "the beloved community."

Bishop Whitaker seems to argue that for the church in the United States to become more inclusive of lesbians and gays (without demanding they be celibate) would be to conform to the "western culture." While non-western Christians uphold "traditional Christianity." Where I challenge Whitaker's thinking is the idea that we in the western world have a "culture" while those in non-western countries do not? In fact, all people live within cultures. Since no existing culture fully manifests the Kingdom of God or the Beloved Community, than all cultures remain under the judgement of God and the need to be reformed.

The question then is what the role of lesbians and gays will be in the Kingdom of God? Is western culture making a correct move by going towards greater inclusiveness? Or is the culture in Nigeria moving towards the Kingdom of God when the Anglican Archbishop there supports throwing lesbians and gays in prison for daring to associate and speak out publically? That is the real issue, it seems to me. Of course, I am presenting two "extremes," but they are two actual movements in different directions in two contemporary cultures. As a denomination that aspires to be a "global church," the United Methodist Church has a responsibility to its Wesleyan roots to decide which type of reform "western" or "Nigerian" moves humanity closer to the Kingdom of God, the Beloved Community.

I will continue to edit and expand these comments on Bishop Whitaker's piece as time permits. (And excuse any typos until I have time to edit.)

In Colorado Springs

Today Jim and I are volunteering to set up a big cook-out to celebrate the end of the long walk (week-long) from Denver to Colorado Springs. People have walked in relay teams, each team taking a five-mile stretch or so.

The whole event comes to a conclusion tomorrow with a march to Focus on the Family. Please visit the www.Soulforce.org website to learn about our concerns with Dr. Dobson and the spiritual violence we perceive Focus to be committing against God's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Bishop Timothy Whitaker of the United Methodist Church has just published a piece (click on his name). I'll ponder this a while and probably comment on it when I get home next week. Needless to say the Soulforce position (and my position) would be that any religious expression which categorizes lesbian and gay persons as inferior represents spiritual violence. Whitaker seems to relegate lesbians and gays to a position in the church which is inferior. He would, perhaps, consider them equal IF they would practice the ascetism of the single life. I would argue that imposing celibacy on someone who does not have that gift from God is another act of spiritual violence. It is the tradition of the church that celibacy is a gift given by God and not a discipline to be imposed by the church on persons without that gift from God. This tradition goes back to Paul's letters. More on all of this later!

On the Road with Soulforce

Just a quick post while I have limited time at a computer station at our KOA camp store in Colorado Springs.

Here's a link to the pictures they took of our Wednesday leg of the long walk from Denver to Colorado Springs. Jim and I are the two old gentlemen with the straw hats and hiking sticks. We walked our 4.9 mile leg plus a little more yesterday. We had the biggest hill climb of the route! Colorado Springs is at a considerably higher elevation than Denver. Cooler too!

It's apparent from the local media in Colorado Springs that the community is a long ways from backing Focus on the Family! We had dinner last night with a gay couple from Denver. We heard encouraging news about Colorado politics. It appears that there is a real possibility that voters will approve BOTH a measure to establish Domestic Partnerships and a ban on "gay marriage." It's an interesting compromise, although still discriminatory against LGBT people. I view it as a move in a positive direction given the current circumstances. And it is certainly better than the constitutional amendment that Wisconsin voters will vote on in November which would outlaw "anything similar to marriage."

We are, however, hopeful that we'll beat back the Wisconsin Amendment. We have lots of organization, lots of money, and a recent poll puts the question in a "dead heat."

Time for an Update

Wedding Bells are Ringing!

We've set the date! Jim Dietrich, my fiance of 25 years, and I have set the date for our marriage in Toronto at the City Hall. On September 1st at 2p.m. we'll stand before an official of the Province of Ontario together with witnesses and take the vows that will legally make us a family.

Yes, I know the State of Wisconsin has a problem recognizing this fact, but Jim and I won't let that bother us.

Also, we are about to head out of town on a vacation to Colorado Springs to join in a Soulforce action against James Dobson's Focus on the Family.

We are taking part in the week-long march from Denver to Colorado Springs. To see our family picture and contribute towards Soulforce's work click here .

The so-called "leak" of government monitoring of "terrorist" banking activity

Friends,

By now you've probably heard some version of this story. It seems the Bush administration and its political allies are claiming that the New York Times has revealed vital secrets--namely that the government has been watching banking transactions to identify terrorist activity.

I can tell you as a lowly church treasurer that I've known this "top secret" since shortly after 9/11. You see, it was my task to wire several thousand dollars from our church's account to missionaries in Central America. The clerk at the bank (apparently in on this top secret) told me she needed to have the names and addresses of the signers on the bank account in Guatemala to which we were wiring the money. She explained that since 9/11 they needed to collect this information on wire transfers over a certain size (I believe it was $3,000.00).

Independent conservative thinker, Andrew Sullivan has this to say.

Minnesota Annual Conference Leads the Way to Equality

The Minnesota Annual Conference has voted to send nine petitions to the 2008 General Conference. This puts them ahead of many Annual Conferences. In my own Wisconsin Annual Conference petitions for the 2008 General Conference will not be considered until our 2007 Annual Conference session a year from now. General Conference is the top legislative body in the United Methodist Church and meets only once every four years for a marathon two week session.

I believe the Minnesota petitions will show the way for other Annual Conferences and the progressive movement within the United Methodist Church. The Minnesotans were bold enough to tackle the entire thirty-two-year accumulation of homophobic legislation in the United Methodist Book of Discipline (the book of official church law). Prior to 1972 the Book of Discipline did not address the topic of homosexuality at all. Since a separate petition is required to amend a single paragraph in the Discipline, the job of cleansing the book of homophobia now requires nine petitions.

Recent action by the denomination's nine-member "supreme court" (the Judicial Council) which legitimated the practice by some Pastors of denying membership in the church to "unrepentant homosexuals" shocked United Methodist Progressives (one example here). No longer are gradualistic, incremental reforms to the Discipline adequate, because progressives can no longer tolerate legislation which demeans and dehumanizes lesbians and gays.

It is also important to note that the Minnesota Conference chose to modify its process of deliberation by using a method to ensure "holy conferencing", The practice of conferencing goes back to eighteenth century Methodist founder John Wesley who invited his lay preachers and clergy allies to join him in periodic conferences to determine the directions of Methodist teaching, policy, administration and mission. United Methodist Bishops have stressed "holy conferencing" to remind United Methodists that their decision-making bodies should rise above the kinds of partisan wrangling and guerilla warfare that too often goes on under the guise of ordinary parliamentary procedure (look at the U.S. Congress for instance).

United Methodist Bishops preside over, but do not have voice or vote in the deliberations of the Annual or General Conferences. From time to time the Bishops in various conferences have urged the suspension of the ordinary rules of debate in order to create a space where real dialogue and listening can take place. I recall this happening once way back in the 1970's at a session of the Wisconsin Annual Conference. Minnesota's approach to "holy conferencing" is well described in the link in the preceding paragraph. An unusual example of holy conferencing occurred at the last General Conference in 2004. As part of the Soulforce team I joined in negotiations with the president of the Council of Bishops (then Peter Weaver) that enabled lesbian and gay persons and their allies to come on the floor of the General Conference to interrupt ordinary Conference business for twenty minutes. This provided an opportunity to demonstrate our grief at the homophobic legislation the General Conference had enacted two days earlier and to express to the Conference our determination and faith that we will see ultimate justice done.

Some folks might be shocked at the suggestion that Soulforce's notorious non-violent direct action techniques could have anything to do with "holy conferencing." Soulforce's use of the methods and teachings of Gandhi and Martin Luther King are not aimed at disruption for its own sake, but is rather aimed at furthering dialogue with adversaries with the ultimate goal of achieving reconciliation.

Perhaps Minnesota's method of holy conferencing will lead to progress at General Conference 2008. Whatever the method, the ultimate goal of holy conferencing and everything else the church of Jesus aims at is reconciliation. Reconciliation was the very mission of Jesus himself.

Oppressive "Christianity" in Nigeria, Africa

Here is an the most comprehensive treatment I've seen so far of the assault on the civil rights of lesbian and gay people in Nigeria. Thanks to Andrew Sullivan's blog for bringing this link to my attention!

We in the United Methodist Church consider ourselves to be a global church. In fact, this is more true of us than it is for the Anglican Communion because African United Methodists meet with us in one General Conference every four years while the Anglican Communion is more a federation of independent national churches. The right-wing, neoconservative Washington think-tank Institute for Religion and Democracy is deeply involved in the attempt to promote schism in both the U.S. Episcopal Church and the United Methodist Church, and one of its tactics is to use the "homosexual issue" as a political wedge issue to accomplish their ends. More specifically, they are promoting the division between African and European and American Christians using the issue of homosexuality. As we can see dramatically in Nigeria, lesbian and gay people are among the victims of this political strategy.

Wisconsin Methodists Support Gay Equality

I'm feeling good about the United Methodist Church this morning. Yesterday the Wisconsin Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church voted for the second year in a row to oppose a proposed state constitutional ban on civil unions and marriage. In Wisconsin our Republican legislature is anxious to turn out the vote this November, and so they are taking a page out of Karl Rove's playbook and have placed on a ballot a constitutional amendment that bans civil unions and same-gender marriages. You can see the language of this ban on the website of Fair Wisconsin our main effort in this state to stop the ban.

I was part of writing of the resolution the Wisconsin United Methodist Annual Conference had passed last year opposing the constitutional ban when it was still being debated in the Wisconsin legislature. This year the right-wing in our Annual Conference organized to try to reverse that decision, but yesterday they failed. The Annual Conference (which consists of about 1000 voting members) voted to continue United Methodist opposition to the ban with a vote by a show of hands estimated by some observers to represent about two-thirds of the voting members.

The Conference is meeting in a suburb of Madison just a little to the west of where Jim and I live and we have been going out in the evenings after work to join with other Methodist supporters of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) equality. We saw many Conference members wearing rainbow stoles in solidarity with LGBT persons. Next year Wisconsin United Methodists will be turning their attention to our next United Methodist General Conference

More on Membership in the United Methodist Church

In the previous post I linked to a pair of commentaries recently published on line by the United Methodist News Service. In that post I have already expressed my disagreement with the proposal of Bruce Robbins that a new category of membership, presumably not granting full membership rights and responsibilities, be established for those who dissent from the current oppressive anti-LGBT policies of the denomination.

In this post I critique Gregory Stover's commentary. It is particularly interesting that Stover reveals in his commentary that the congregation he pastors recently confirmed a youth from a household headed by two moms. Stover writes:

On a recent Sunday, a new class of students was confirmed at the church I serve. We ask the parents of the confirmands to stand with their daughters and sons. One young man was joined by the two women listed as his parents in the service materials. I was glad for this young man. He came to our church through our youth ministry and experienced a vibrant, new faith in Christ through the confirmation preparation. I felt good that both his mothers had come to worship and participate in this joyful moment in their son's spiritual life. Yet, as one who supports our current stance on homosexuality, I also sensed that morning the depth of the controversy that grips us as United Methodists.

Stover, as the pastor-in-charge, seems to have taken some risk here. He seems to recognize these two women to be family, to be parents, in fact. There are evangelicals (so-called) who would have refused to recognize the two women as family, much less mothers to the same young man. Once one recognizes these two moms to be family raising a good, Christian boy, why would one argue that they not enjoy equal civil rights and responsibilities with heterosexual married couples with children? Stover risked the anger of those who would be offended by the recognition of these two moms in the program.

Stover never really addresses one obvious question--would these two women be welcome to join the congregation with their son? The answer Stover's fellow evangelicals give in United Methodist Judicial Council Decision 1032 is a resounding "no." Perhaps "no" is the answer Stover gave the couple--we do not know. Maybe it is this question of membership Stover has in mind when writes, "I also sensed that morning the depth of the controversy that grips us as United Methodists."

The church's job is to be concerned with people's spiritual journey, and so the church recognizes that the nurturing of the spiritual journeys of children ideally includes working with and being concerned for their families. We recognize this when we ask parents to answer the vows of baptism for their children and promise to raise them in the Christian faith. In baptism congregations partner with families to nurture the spiritual journeys of children. Churches make great efforts to reach out to families with children and minister to them as families for this very reason--to nurture with them the next generation of Christians. Right now, I am told, there are over a million children being raised by lesbian and gay couples, so it is no surprise that Stover has one such couple in his pastoral charge. No doubt many congregations have such children within the geographic boundaries of their parishes, and yet our Discipline offers little or no guidance on our ministry to such families. In fact, the Discipline does not seem to be aware of their existence.

Stover apparently embraces the ex-gay myth. The eschatological future will be free of homosexuality. There will be plenty of heterosexuals in heaven, but no homosexuals!

Our current stance invites those who become members to believe that in Jesus Christ there is a future reality beyond homosexual practice that represents God's fullest measure of grace. It invites them to anticipate and seek that future by faith.

Of course, Jesus' answer is that there will be no heterosexuals in heaven either: "there will be no marriage or giving in marriage in the resurrection" said Jesus when he was asked a tricky question of family law in Ancient Israel. Stover swallows whole the deeply held prejudices that arise from the patriarchal and heterosexist culture of this world and he projects those prejudices on the world to come.

The Problem of "Gay Membership" in the United Methodist Church

The United Methodist News Service has just published on the web a pair of opinion pieces by Bruce Robbins and Gregory Stover addressing the now troubled issue of whether lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons can be members of the United Methodist Church. Bruce Robbins pastors Hennepin Avenue United Methodist Church in Minneapolis which is a Reconciling Congregation. The Rev. Robbins was formerly the chief executive of the official United Methodist Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns (CCUIC). The Rev. Stover who is a United Methodist District Superintendent and Pastor in Ohio has also served with Robbins on the CCUIC while at the same time being closely affiliated with the so-called "Confessing Movement" in the United Methodist Church. (Stover now serves on the Board of Directors of the Confessing Movement. See this Wikipedia article on the Confessing Movement for more information on that movement and its connections with the Republican, neo-conservative, Washington think-tank Institute on Religion and Democracy.)

Let me state for the record that I oppose Bruce Robbin's suggestion that we create a new category of membership called "anticipatory members" to the extent that such "members" would be denied any of the rights and responsibilities of "real" members. I realize that Robbins does not intend to discriminate against LGBT persons. On the contrary, he proposes this new "anticipatory membership" in order to accommodate persons who scruple to join his congregation as members of the United Methodist Church because of the denomination's unjust anti-LGBT policies.

What is Robbins to do with the membership candidates whose scruples prevent them from joining a local church of a denomination that practices injustice against LGBT persons? I believe Robbins needs to explain that members of the United Methodist Church are free as members to dissent from the Social Principles and to object to the discriminatory practices enshrined in our current Book of Discipline. As members of the United Methodist Church they have the right and the responsibility to work for change through the democratic processes of the United Methodist Church. If one truly believes in the redemptive future that Robbins would have his "anticipatory members" anticipate, then have them become "real" members and work for change!

If, on the other hand, one believes the United Methodist Church is beyond redemption, then there is nothing to anticipate. If there is no hope, one should not join or remain a member of any local United Methodist Church, not even Robbin's fine congregation.

Soulforce relentlessly seeks equality for gay in the military

Today we learn that Soulforce is continuing its efforts to establish the principle that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people are entitled to equal opportunity and treatment. In this case Soulforce takes on discrimination against LGBT persons by the U.S. military. I am no fan of war or the military, but it is well argued that military service is one of the marks of full citizenship in this society--to be denied the opportunity to serve one's country in this way is an unjust stigma imposed on LGBT persons. Making it possible for LGBT persons to serve honorably and openly would go a long ways towards removing that stigma. At least where I sit in the purple state of Wisconsin, the only two professions LGBT persons are routinely barred from are the clergy and the military.

It is vitally important for LGBT people and their allies to be speaking out at every opportunity, because the religious right, acting through its control of the GOP is seeking to take away the liberties of LGBT persons. They will not stop at merely denying us the right to marry. When they have succeeded in their drive to amend state and federal constitutions to bar us from marriage, they will turn to other issues until they have succeeded in re-criminalizing homosexuality.

Theocracy or Justice?

I was just reading an interesting comment left at Wesley Blog:

"When the Religious Right wants to inform its politics with its theology, it's called Theocracy.

"When the Religious Left wants to inform its politics with its theology, its called Justice.

"Yes, some things *are* that simple.

"Now I happen to lean a bit left politically, and greatly prefer the political agenda of Wallis to Dobson on almost every issue, but there is a great deal of hypocrisy in what some people label as a theocratic agenda, especially when it comes to the Iraq war. Bush gets condemned for following religious leaders in many areas, AND condemned for not following his own church's leaders objection to the war."

Perhaps this brother is speaking with some irony, but I would venture to disagree with the idea there is no difference between the religious right's desire to exercise political power and control, and the religious left's social gospel, pacifism and internationalism.

According to the Statement of Values of the religious left Christian Alliance for Progress those of us who are religious progressives value the "Right Use of Power":

"Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple...." (Mark 11:15-16)

Satan "...showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; and he said to him. ' All these I will give you...' Jesus said to him. 'Away with you, Satan...'" (Matthew 4: 8-10)

"Jesus understood worldly authority. When he acted in the temple to throw out the money changers, he challenged powerful systems of purity codes and taxes that were oppressive. But this was an act of protest against injustice. While Jesus advocated a different social vision, he did not force others to accept this vision. Every year during Holy Week, we are reminded that the kingdom Jesus proclaimed was not to be brought about by force.

"Yet Jesus was powerful. He was filled with the power of the spirit. He used this power to bring healing miracles into the lives others. In his ministry Jesus showed us how God's power can help a just world emerge. As Christians and Americans, we strive to follow Jesus' example as we acknowledge that we are powerful, but as we also seek to avoid the seduction of power and the temptation to coerce others to our will. In the darkest and most frightening times, Jesus calmed and strengthened his followers, telling them "Be not afraid..." (Matthew 28: 10) Jesus shows us that we must reject fear and use the power of God that flows through us to protect the innocent and build justice in the world."

I don't see the religious left making the claim that only Christians should exercise political control in the United States. Ideally, most of us on the left hope to be one voice among many voices in a secular society. And, by the way, secularism with its protection diversity in religious expression has been a boon to religion of all denominations and faiths. Elements of the extreme religious right, on the other hand believe they are working to establish the 1000 year reign of Christ through seeking control of the Republican Party and all three branches of government. Not every conservative political project should be branded as "theocratic," to be sure, but those who claim the exclusive right to rule through divine right are theocratic.

As for Jim Winkler's call for the impeachment of the President, there are doubts even among the President's own party about the legality of certain of his actions. If Congress were independent enough to investigate the possibly unconstitutional misdeeds of this President, then perhaps the constitutional process of impeachment might make sense. If the President is innocent of "high crimes and misdemeanors," then, like Bill Clinton, he will be acquitted.

Remembering an African Lesbian Activist

This Memorial Day, I'm remembering Fanny Ann Eddy who was a lesbian activist and native of Sierra Leone in Africa. She was brutally murdered in the offices of the lesbian and gay organization she led in Freetown, Sierra Leone.

A short time before her death she gave this testimony to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. Fanny Ann's testimony and her life and death remind those of us in the western world that human rights and the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons are very much live issues in Africa.

One of the ironies of the Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria's support for repressive legislation against LGBT persons is that he claims the struggle for LGBT rights is "unAfrican." In fact, much of the anti-gay legal structure and rhetoric in Africa stems from the old legal traditions of Great Britain and British colonialism. In the nineteenth century British law still called for death by hanging for persons convicted of "sodomy." It is this colonial legacy that Archbishop Akinola defends.

Episcopal Bishop Chane on Nigeria

Episcopal Bishop John Chane of Washington D.C. published this criticism of the Nigerian Anglican Archbishop. Take note that Bishop Chane challenges the American backers of Archbishop Akinola to justify their support of the Archbishop's denial of human rights to lesbian and gay persons.

More on this later. . .

Nigerian Oppression of Gay Persons

Andrew Sullivan's blog brings my attention to this piece from a British commentator. The right-wing think tank, Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD), has been working closely with the Archbishop of Nigeria to promote schism in the Anglican Communion. They are using the same tactic on the United Methodist Church. Will African United Methodist Bishops support this kind of legal oppression of gay people in their own nations? My recollection is that we have a United Methodist Bishop in Nigeria.

IRD has been trying to promote African Christianity as more "Christian" than the U.S. Churches they are targeting. IRD itself relies on substantial funding by Howard Ahmanson whose wife sits on their board. Ahmanson has been associated with that wierd little group called Christian Reconstruction that wants to apply the death penalty (by stoning) to persons convicted of "homosexual behavior." IRD has defended the Nigerian Archbishop's position by suggesting that the law he backs is more humane than the death penalty allegedly applied by Islamic Africans.

I'll be writing more on this in coming days and provide some more links. In the meantime, take note that the Episcopal Bishop of Washington DC and the Canadian Anglican Church have been speaking out against the Archbishop of Nigeria's shocking position against the human rights of gay people. It seems to me that the Archbishop of Nigeria is likely to lose any claim to moral or theological "high ground" in the current conflict in the Anglican Communion between the progressive North American Anglicans and the so-called "orthodox" of the so-called "global south."

Recent Comments on Soulforce

Thanks for the comments, folks. It's nice to know folks are reading and thinking.

Shane over at Wesley Blog points out that I misunderstood his comments on Soulforce. He does not recommend Soulforce be arrested for simply showing up at General Conference, only if Soulforce disrupts the Conference.

Perhaps a little history is in order: Soulforce has been present at two United Methodist General Conferences--2000 and 2004. In both cases I was an eyewitness to the Soulforce actions. In 2000 there were nearly 200 Soulforce volunteers who were arrested in a peaceful demonstration OUTSIDE the General Conference. The arrests were orderly, police and demonstrators were treated with mutual courtesy, and no one was hurt. Soulforce had made a deliberate decision after negotiations with United Methodist officials, NOT to engage in an action that would disrupt the proceedings of the General Conference. Later, on another day that week, a group of United Methodist activists NOT RELATED to Soulforce conducted a disruption on the inside and were arrested. Understandably, there is confusion and rumors about what happened and who did what as this story is told and retold.

In 2004, Soulforce, again negotiating with United Methodist officials, did organize a 20 minute "disruption" of General Conference business. At the insistance of United Methodist officials and Soulforce negotiators, it was agreed that this "disruption" would be orderly and would be conducted with the safety of all concerned in mind, and there would be no arrests. United Methodist officials had no interest in repeating the arrests of the 2000 General Conference. The "disruption" was very little different from other breaks in Conference business. The Bishop presiding treated it as an ordinary recess from regular business, and many delegates, bishops and observers enjoyed the music and hymn-singing which were part of the demonstration.

Despite the anti-gay actions taken by the General Confence earlier that week, the demonstration affirmed that gay people are anything but anti-United Methodist. On the contrary, we affirmed our inclusion in God's community as delegates and demonstrators together sang a rousing chorus of the old Methodist hymn, "Marching to Zion."

Some reports of the event confuse the demonstration with other events happening during General Conference. There was a separate incident, for instance, in which a United Methodist clergyperson unrelated to Soulforce, impulsively shattered a communion chalice. This had nothing to do with Soulforce, but uninformed folks who would like to think of Soulforce as somehow "violent" sometimes confuse these incidents. The folks I know at Soulforce think very deeply about the meanings of nonviolence and violence, and genuinely seek to avoid violence of any kind.

Soulforce's Equality Ride

Shane over at Wesley Blog has issued a rather one-sided attack on Soulforce. Shane’s view is one-sided because he mentions only those colleges on the Equality Ride that chose to arrest the Soulforce Equality Riders rather than agree to dialogue with Soulforce, and he seems to recommend a similar course of action to the United Methodist General Conference.

Here is a link to a press release from Abiliene Christian University where both Soulforce Riders and University officials believe the Soulforce event yielded valuable, Christian dialogue. The Chicago Sun Times reports much the same about Soulforce’s visit to Wheaton College. In neither of these cases were there arrests or even complaints about anything untoward. Soulforce volunteers were able to deliver their message and to dialogue with students and faculty. Official positions did not change, but respectful dialogue occurred. Without such dialogue, meaningful change is likely not possible.

The Wheaton dialogue is an especially good example, because, as Soulforce leader Jake Reitan says, in many respects Wheaton has some of the harshest anti-gay policies of all the schools visited, forbidding students from even holding contrary opinions. Even here there was respectful dialogue (though Wheaton faculty and students are apparently not free to hold opinions contrary to the official doctrine of the school).

Shane takes the very unusual position that Soulforce volunteers should be arrested for simply showing up at the next General Conference. I don’t think the United Methodist Church wants to follow the example of Falwell’s ironically named Liberty University, rather than associate itself with the kind of openness to dialogue demonstrated by Abilene Christian University.

The Christian Century: Mark Noll on Slavery & Scripture

I'm subscribed to The Christian Century whose latest issue (May 2, 2006) contains an article by the evangelical scholar and Wheaton College professor, Mark Noll. Noll's article is titled "Crisis of Interpretation: Slavery and Scripture."

Noll does not make any explicit analogy between the controversy in the churches over slavery and the current conflict over homosexuality, but I cannot help but read his article in that light. Noll affirms what I've already learned on the subject--that the abolitionists were the folks who stood accused of abandoning biblical authority and the pro-slavery side occupied the "high ground" with the bible on their side. The Bible is loaded with pro-slavery prooftexts while the abolitionists could only appeal to general priciples of justice and humanity supported by the "golden rule."

The Civil War seems to many like ancient history, but the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, the Southern Baptist Convention, still bears a name that identifies them with what was the "biblical" (pro-slavery) side of the debate. My own denomination, The United Methodist Church, still bears some of the jagged scars of its own historic division into northern and southern denominations.

I don't know that Noll's article gives us any answers for the current battle over the Bible and homosexuality, but it ought to serve as a caution about how we approach the Bible. The mistakes of the past might make us more humble about the certainty of our positions in the present.

Wedding Plans Move Ahead

Wedding plans have been going forward for Jim and I. You see, we can be legally married in Canada. Turns out it's not a simple deal--lawyers, registrars, magistrates and all that--but they all treat us like it's a good thing we're doing, something to be congratulated. We've found the same thing visiting jewlers here in Madison to look for a pair of men's wedding bands. Today we bought tuxedos (on sale at Pennys), and the store clerk was also congratulatory. Its all been fun so far.

We haven't set the exact date as yet, but are planning a trip to Toronto. There we will see friends, a nice young gay couple who once lived together here in Madison. They emmigrated to Canada because Canadian immigration laws allow them the right to stay together, whereas U.S. law would have split them forcing one of them back to his country of birth.

I really don't want to leave the land of my birth, but it makes one wonder to see the liberty and respect gay and lesbian persons have in Canada (as well as Great Britain, Spain, South Africa and various other European countries). What's the problem with the USA? We seem to be lacking in religious freedom, since Fundamentalist Christians seem to expect the right to dictate the law for the rest of us.

From an Unrepentant Homosexual Awaiting Trial

Here is the United Methodist News Service report.
Here is a direct link to Memorandum 1041 which reports and explains the refusal to reconsider decision 1032.
Here is a link to Decision 1032.

Note that this appears to have been a 5-4 decision with not only two bitter written dissents, but a bitter concurring opinion. The Judicial Council has failed to resolve the underlying issue, but instead has aggravated the controversy over homosexuality.

General Conference 2004 spoke clearly in its reaffirmation of bars to lesbian and gay persons in the ordained ministry. It appears now that having "won" that contest, Methodist fundamentalists are emboldened to remove lesbian and gay persons from church membership as well.

This is not an exageration, but rather one of the consequences of decision 1032 mentioned by Judicial Council member Keith Boyette in his concurring opinion to the original decision 1032. In that concurring opinion Boyette argues as follows:

To adopt the position advanced by the rulings of law under review here and by those who dissent would result in the anomalous result that a person who could not affirm the vows of ¶ 217 being admitted to membership and then immediately being subject to discipline as required by ¶ 221. The Discipline does not require such a nonsensical result.

If one turns to one's handy Discipline and reads the paragraph 221 referenced by Mr. Boyette, one finds that the end of that road is either "repentance" or removal from membership either by church trial or voluntary withdrawl. The message of the Judicial Council to lesbian and gay United Methodists is "repent or get out."

Nor can one argue that this decision does not effect persons who attend moderate or progressive congregations that welcome lesbians and gays into membership. The trial process for lay persons is entirely out of the hands of local churches. Remember, folks, that in United Methodist polity the local church is NOT the basic unit of the church. One does not simply join the local church, one joins the United Methodist Church. The Discipline allows for anyone in or outside of a local congregation to bring charges against a lay member, a trial would be held not by the local church, but by the district--and all members of the local church in question would be excluded from serving on the trial court. One would not be judged by one's gay-friendly pastor and fellow congregants, but by strangers from other churches in the District in a proceeding presided over by the District Superintendant.

The Judicial Council has turned all "unrepenant homosexuals" in the church into "unindicted malefactors," into "criminals" who are only one formal complaint away from trial, conviction and removal from the membership of the church. For many this is a stigma that will be unbearable, and they will simply leave the church making trials unnecessary. For others this may be an opportunity for "voluntary redemptive suffering." Following the teachings of Gandhi and King they will stand firmly by the truth as they see it. If this is the law of the church, than the whole church must be brought to the realization of the consequences of their unjust and, yes, unChristian law. Let the church bear the burden of hundreds of trials! Actually, even one such trial is likely to prove to be a very heavy burden for the church indeed.

Such "voluntary redemptive suffering" would not be intended as suffering for its own sake. It would become redemptive as it would finally bring the church to the knowledge of the truth that lesbian and gay persons are God's children too!

"You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose . . ."

I've been reading Wesleyblog lately. Shane, who owns Wesleyblog, has raised an interesting idea--he thinks Reconciling Ministries Nework and Soulforce are doing a lousy job of representing the interests of lesbian and gay persons, and he'd like to see someone else represent the interests of lesbian and gay United Methodists. This reminded me of that old saying, "You can pick your friends and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friend's nose." However friendly Shane may be, I'm not comfortable having him picking the leadership of the lesbian and gay community of which my family is a part.

Now Shane also tells us he'd really rather not publish anything about about gay people on his blog right now. The subject has been given too much airtime already in Shane's view. But now we see Soulforce and Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN) goad Shane into giving lesbian and gay United Methodists more airtime on his blog--seems to me Soulforce and RMN are doing a great job! If Soulforce and RMN did not already exist, we'd have to invent them.

Judicial Council Reconsiders

The United Methodist Judicial Council meets this coming week, and we shall learn if they are going to reconsider their decision 1032. As I see it, what is at stake is whether lesbian and gay persons in committed, same-gender relationships can even be members of the Church. Decision 1032 seems to suggest not only that pastors have a free hand to refuse baptism and membership to lesbians and gays, but that those who have membership might face charges before a church tribunal and have their membership removed by a church trial court--the concurring opinion of Judicial Council member Keith Boyette seems to say as much.

Here is some news from the United Methodist News Service about 75 lesbian and gay United Methodist pastors who have signed a letter protesting the Judicial Council's position. Here is another link to an article describing the briefs being considered by the Judicial Council as they weigh whether to revisit decision 1032.

It should be noted that the 75 pastors are having their actual names/identities held in confidence by an attorney. Some folks making comments in the blogosphere (for example, see Wesleyblog.com and comments posted there) are accusing these pastors of cowardice and of issuing an "anonymous" letter. I disagree. The letter is not anonymous--there are 75 real persons who have identified themselves to an attorney. They are forced to have their identities held in confidence by that attorney, because to be identified as gay or lesbian would bring an immediate end to their ministries. There voices in the church would be silenced, they would simply be cast out and shut out.

I believe their witness is a valuable one, because it reminds people that there are more than one or two lesbian UM clergy who have been tried and defrocked--there are many lesbian and gay UM clergy, many of whom who have been forced out of the ministry without "benefit" of a trial, and many of whom still quietly serve.

A Granddaughter is born - and she blogs!

The new grandbaby arrived on Holy Thursday just before a hailstorm with golfball-size hail. Here's her blog. And baby pictures! The blog is mainly the work of Aunt Nancy, the other daughter (besides Mother Sarah) that Jim and I raised together. I'm very proud of our growing family!

"Misquoting Jesus"

My most-faithfully-read blog is Andrew Sullivan's. Andrew is interesting. A political conservative (which I definitely am not) who is openly gay, and who voted for John Kerry. I don't agree with Andrew on everything, for sure. Andrew wishes that Bush would have managed the Iraq War more competently. I think a more competent president never would have take us into this war in the first place.

Anyway, Andrew is also a Christian, a Roman Catholic, and he's shown some interest lately in Bart Ehrman's new book "Misquoting Jesus." Today he shares with us a link to this critique of Ehrman by another scholar, Ben Witherington.

Ehrman was an "evangelical" (or maybe, more accurately, a Fundamentalist) educated at the Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College and later Princeton. When he went into the field of textual criticism, his faith in the Bible was apparently shaken. The text was not as reliable as he once believed it was, apparently. So now Ehrman is an agnostic.

This seems to be one of the dangers of being a Biblical literalist--if one's faith is in the text of the Bible rather than in the God of the Bible, one might be setting oneself up for a fall. This is one of the problems of "Bibliolatry"--the making of an idol, or false god, of the Bible. Witherington offers a helpful criticism of Ehrman that might help the lay people who read Ehrman's book from getting too carried away by Ehrman's "revelations"--none of which are new in the field of the textual criticism of the Bible.

"Gospel of Intolerance"

This opinion piece originally appeared in the Washington Post, but when I went searching for it on the web, I found it on a Pakistani Christian website, a fact which itself shows the global nature of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) struggle for dignity and equality.

An on-line Episcopal friend whom I met at a PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) conference keeps me abreast of the LGBT struggle in the Episcopal/Anglican Church. I believe we Methodists have much to learn here. If nothing else, it is instructive how the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) plays a role in stirring the schismatic pot in that denomination as well as ours.

Of course, the United Methodist Church is even more linked to our African Christian counterparts than are the Episcopalians. African United Methodists cast a growing share of votes in our General Conference. This developing situation in Nigeria raises interesting questions. Our United Methodist Social Principles currently support the human and civil rights of LGBT persons. Are African United Methodists willing to stand for this principle in their own lands? Or will they eventually seek to move our General Conference to remove the more "progressive" aspects of our Social Principles' statements on LGBT persons.

Or is it possible that the influence of United Methodist Social Principles might work in the other direction, urging African United Methodists to speak out against the oppression of LGBT persons in Africa? South Africa, for that matter, under its new post-apartheid Constitution, is now one of the most progressive regimes in the world for LGBT persons. It's one of the growing number of countries in the world that recognizes same-gender marriages.

"Claiming the Promises"

I mentioned in the previous post that I attended a different United Methodist Church in Madison yesterday. It is Trinity Church, located in the old residential neighborhood south of the University of Wisconsin Campus. I'll be attending there for at least the season of Lent (and maybe a little longer). They are using the curriculum "Claiming the Promises" published by the Reconciling Ministries Network. Seems to me that the prospects are good that this will become the fourth United Methodist Church (out of eleven) in this small city to openly declare it's openess to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) persons.

"When I fall down on my knees. . .

"When I fall down on my knees with my face to the rising sun, O Lord, have mercy on me" So goes the words of the old folk hymn. Yesterday I attended another United Methodist Church in Madison--probably one of the oldest Methodist buildings in the city. God bless 'em, they've added a lift which will make the building accessible to our differently abled brothers and sisters! But they have not changed the old communion rails. This may be the only United Methodist Church in the city where one can still receive communion the way Wesley preferred we receive it--on our knees! (Though I will add that Wesley himself describes a communion service he conducted where he allowed communicants to freely choose their posture for reception--even so, he was pleased that the majority chose to kneel.)

Of course, the method of reception of communion has nothing to do with our salvation, but the practice of kneeling slows things down a bit and gives one time to really ponder what it is we are about.

Evangelicals: Green or not Green?

Neoconservative-connected Evangelicals put the kibosh on plans for the National Association of Evangelicals to come out in support of serious efforts to curb global warming. However a prestigious group of evangelical leaders broke ranks with the White House calling for government efforts to address the threat of global warming.

Our good buddies at the neoconservative Washington think-tank, Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD) are deeply involved in this issue. Watch for me to post some more on this issue, but for now let me say I've been seeing this coming for some time. As one who keeps and eye on IRD, I've noticed that they have been involved in critiquing the development of social justice policy by the National Association of Evangelicals, and that they have been developing counter-arguments against taking action on global warming and the environment, generally.

This saddens me, because as a Madison resident and a graduate of our University of Wisconsin, I have taken a good deal of pride in the work of Professor Cal Dewitt, an evangelical and an environmentalist who has worked for many years to convince his fellow evangelicals that God is calling them to be environmentalists. (Calvin DeWitt is quoted in the first Washington Post article linked above.) However, environmentalism is an inconvenience to the powers that be that control the ruling neoconservative wing of the Republican party. Let's pray that evangelicals will continue to break ranks with this power-hungry Washington gang.

Will 1032 lead to schism?

I'm thankful for the comments I've been receiving on this blog. One reader commented on my post about Bishop Kammerer's motion to the Judicial Council to reconsider their decision number 1032. Decision 1032 grants to pastors "discretion" to deny membership to whoever they choose, and declares that this "discretion" cannot be reviewed or challenged by District Superintendents, Bishops or colleagues. In the case then before before the Judicial Council, membership was denied to a person the Methodist Right calls an "unrepentant homosexual."

I suggested that decision 1032 is divisive and will give further impetus to formally divide the church to cause schism. Does this mean, as my reader suggests, that "the Methodist Left will push for schism if 1032 is not reversed"? I really don't know. I don't speak for "the Methodist Left," and I'm not sure anyone does. What I am saying is that 1032 continues down a road that has put more and more pressure on progressives in the Church. The Methodist Right is making it more and more clear that the Methodist Left is not welcome in "their church."

We went from 1784 to 1972 with no mention of homosexuality in Methodist (or EUB Disciplines). It was not until the 1980's that there was language in the Discipline that clearly barred "practicing homosexuals" from ordination. Then it was only 10 years ago that the blessing of same-gender unions was forbidden in the Church--that was the first time that LGBT laity (as opposed to LGBT clergy or aspiring clergy) were directly effected by anti LGBT policies. Not only that, the anti-blessing policy was the first to interfere directly with the ministry and and worship life of local United Methodist Churches and their pastors. As such it effected non-gay persons as well.

Decision 1032 is the first decision to legitimate, in church law, the exclusion of LGBT persons from membership, and the concurring opinion of Judicial Council Member Keith Boyette, published with decision 1032, suggests that LGBT persons who are already members may expect that they could lose their membership in the church if they do not "repent." IRD's Mark Tooley and Good News' James Heidinger now see the door open to begin church trials to remove LGBT persons from membership and have said so.

"Amicable separation" was first proposed by the Methodist Right at the 2004 General Conference. Confessing Movement leader, Bill Hinson, painted this proposal as a compassionate way to end the suffering of progressive and LGBT Methodists under official church oppression. It appears that their intention is to put more and more pressure on progressive Methodists in order to force them out of the church--there doesn't seem to be much that is "amicable" about that.

Where I stand personally: Schism just doesn't seem right to me. I believe in the unity of the Body of Christ, and think it is a shame that we divide the church. On the other hand, what am I to do if I find my membership is forcibly removed from me? Can the Judicial Council really exclude me from the Body of Christ--or will the Spirit find a way to reconstitute that broken body somewhere else? The early church really began to grow after persecution drove them out of their first home in Jerusalem.

The year of Mark

I missed posting on the lectionary for the Fifth Sunday after Epiphany. I hope no one was counting on me for sermon ideas! This is the year of the Gospel of Mark, and it seems like we've been stuck in the first chapter of Mark for three weeks now, and we have one more week to go of that before we get to chapter two!

Chapter one is prologue and set up for the rest of the story. The first big controversy doen't happen until chapter two, but there are certain foreshadowings in chapter one. There is the passing reference to the arrest of John the Baptist. It seems, maybe, that John got in trouble because of his popularity and all the crowds that were coming from everywhere to rally to him in the desert. Now, in the later part of the first chapter, Jesus is beginning to go down that same road--gathering huge crowds to him attracted by his ability to heal the sick, and hearing his preaching the coming of the Rule of God.

I agree with John Dominic Crossan who suggests that Jesus was a threat because he provided the crowds an access to God that did not go through "the proper channels" (through the brokers of power). The "proper" religious channels were under control of the Roman puppet rulers, the priestly class, of Jerusalem and all their clients (those who depended on the patronage of the powerful). John the Baptist provided the masses with "a baptism for the repentence of sins." No need to go to Jerusalem and enrich the Temple system--just go to the river and wash. John preached the coming Rule of God--and what will become of Roman rule then? John is arrested, and Jesus goes down the same road. Is it any wonder Jesus is headed for trouble in chapter two?

And then there is the big secret announced in verse one of chapter 1, the secret that the demons keep wanting to cry out--Jesus is the Son of God! Why is that such a secret? Ceasar had public artworks erected everywhere (the mass media of the day) to proclaim that he was the Son of God (Augustus was the son of the divine Julius Ceasar!) Best to keep that secret, Jesus. You'll be in trouble with Ceasar if he should ever hear that one!

Bishop Charlene Kammerer seeks Reconsideration of #1032

This article from the United Methodist News Service deals with the appeal by Bishop Kammerer for reconsideration by the Judicial Council of their decision 1032. The Council of Bishops unanimously raised their objections to 1032 in a pastoral letter to the whole Church. Some have mistakenly thought that this guaranteed a reconsideration by the Judicial Council. Actually, only parties to the original decision (of which Bishop Kammerer was one, being the Bishop whose ruling on church law was reversed by the Judicial Council) have standing to file an appeal for reconsideration. After hearing the motions for reconsideration, at least five of the nine-member Judicial Council will need to vote for reconsideration before decision 1032 itself will be reconsidered. There is no guarantee that the Judicial Council will reverse itself. This is very much a live issue.

It is almost an understatement to say that this issue is divisive--the Judicial Council's decision received the unanimous rebuke of the Council of Bishops. In effect, the "judicial branch" of United Methodist church government has been rebuked by the "executive branch." Reconsideration by the Judicial Council of its own decision is the only way forward. If decision 1032 stands, expect pressure for schism of the church to build. In effect, the "right-wing" of the church is raising the stakes in the thirty-year debate over the "issue of homosexuality." Until now the "right-wing" was satisfied to exclude LGBT persons from ordained ministry--now the way is opened to simply exclude LGBT people from the body of Christ altogether.

Letter from Bishop Linda Lee on Judicial Council Decision 1032

[Note: Below is a letter which appeared recently in the Wisconsin Annual Conference Newsletter, Communique. Since, I have not found that letter elsewhere on the web, I reproduce it below. General permission was given to reproduce the content of Communique]

December 2005

Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,

At its fall 2005 meeting the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church made 32 decisions of church law. The structure of the United Methodist Church resembles that of the U.S. government. General Conference is the legislative branch; Judicial Council is the "supreme court." The Council of Bishops is similar to the executive branch but, although the Council has a president, elected every two years, there is no single general officer or executive of The United Methodist Church.

One of the decisions made by the Judicial Council was #1032. This decision included a response to the question of whether a pastor must receive into church membership anyone who is able to receive, affirm and promise to affirm the vow of membership. In this instance, it was a person who is homosexual.

This decision of the judicial body of our Church has caused alarm among what appears to be a significant segment across our membership. In the Council of Bishops there was enough concern about the implications of this decision, that at our November meeting we drafted a unanimous response including the following understanding of our Constitution:

"The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth. 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, upon baptism be admitted as baptized members, and upon taking the vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members in any local church in the connection."

The first criteria for membership in the United Methodist Church and the Church universal is our relationship with Jesus Christ. Everything else we do and commit to flows from that relationship.

in addition to my understanding that the words of our constitution are clear, I have a couple of other questions about this decision.

I affirm the duty and responsibility of appointed pastors to "exercise responsible pastoral judgement in determining who may be received into the membership of a local church," (Decision #1032). However, I believe the Judicial Council interpretation of this responsibility sets a precedent that allows determination of membership to be based on criteria which are neither Biblical nor Disciplinary. It opens a door that has the potential to set human relations in our nation and denomination back 50 years or more because it allows for an arbitrary standard of church membership that can be easily abused. This decision also has the potential to undermine the covenant of the clergy session and the supervisory responsibilities of Cabinets and Bishops.

This kind of decision by the judicial body of our denomination is serious in its implications for the future membership of our congregations because its effect can be divisive and exclusionary. As we look toward 2006 in the Wisconsin Conference, let us join our hearts and spirits in prayer for our denomination. Let us claim the ministry of reconciliation and witness to God's love, given to us by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Let us be clear in our convictions, open in our hearts, strong in our trust in God and abiding in love for one another. It is by our love that the world will know that we are Jesus' disciples.

"Each of us is now a part of his resurrection body, refreshed and sustained at one fountain - Spirit - where we all come to drink. The old labels we once used to identify ourselves - labels like Jew or Greek, slave or free - are no longer useful. We need something larger, something more comprehensive." (I Corinthians 12: 27)

That more is this:

"You are Christ's body - that's who you are! You must never forget this." (I Corinthians 12: 27)

In Christ's Spirit,

Bishop Linda Lee