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

The Lord will raise up a prophet . . . .

The reading from the Hebrew Scriptures in this coming Sunday's lectionary is from Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy seems to suggest that one of the reasons God continues to send prophets after Moses is because the people of God say "If I hear the voice of the LORD my God any more, or ever again see this great fire, I will die." (Deut. 18:16b) That people cannot see and know God directly and absolutely seems to be a theme throughout Scripture. Another example is from I John 4: 12 "No one has ever seen God . . ." and a little later at I John 4:20b ". . .for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen."

The reading in Deuteronomy suggests that we continue to need prophets because we cannot see God or fully know God's Word in a direct way. I believe this is a caution against bibliolatry--making an idol or substitute for God out of the Bible. Why, after all, did the people of God need prophets when they presumably had God's word in the form of the Torah, the law, delivered in writing from Moses (this, of course, ignores the fact that scholars no longer think Moses was the source of that part of the Bible we know as the "five books of Moses.")

This raises another point--"God's word" is no where in the Bible identified with the sixty-six books that we Protestants call the Bible. For Christians the supreme prophet, the very Word of God (see the prologue to John's Gospel), was revealed to us in God's incarnation in Jesus the Christ. Even so, we continue to need prophets to remind us of God's revelation in Jesus, and to continue to reveal to us the word that God is still speaking us today. (I hadn't planned to refer to the United Church of Christ's new slogan, "God is Still Speaking"--but it is an excellent statement.)

For those who believe in Bibliolatry what I am saying here is heresy--and yet I believe the Bible itself tells us that God has more to reveal to us than is contained in those sixty-six books of the Protestant canon of Scripture.

School of the Americas Watch

Today in worship we had a blessing and send off for Fred Brancel, one of our members at University United Methodist Church in Madison who is traveling to Columbus, Georgia to face trial for civil disobedience against the School of the Americas. Here is a link to School fo the Americas Watch and an article describing the upcoming trial. Fred is 79 years old. I've know Fred since the early 1970's when he worked on the staff of the Wesley Foundation and University Church. Perhaps many more of us will need to follow Fred's example before we can put an end to our government's support for and use of torture.

Mainstream Media on Egg Roll "Controversy"

Over the last week I've been posting about the right-wing revelation of a "plot" by lesbian and gay families to bring their children to the White House Easter Egg Roll (see below). Here is the first mainstream media report on this "controversy." Pretty well done, I think. The right wing needs to explain why the picture perfect family with two mommies shown with this article are too threatening to be admitted to the event with other families.

Now after John was arrested . . .

"Now after John was arrested . . ." --this is how this Sunday's gospel reading from Mark begins the first large section of the gospel (1:14-10:52) describing the ministry of Jesus in Galilee. We move from Mark's short prologue (1:1-1:13) into the body of his Gospel. We've learned in the prologue that John the baptizer was attracting large crowds of people to go out into the wilderness to be baptized. Jesus was baptized by John, received the Spirit, and then spent time alone in the wilderness being tested by satan until "after John was arrested."

My political sense tells me that the mass movement that was drawn to John was a threat to the Roman puppet ruler Herod. Jesus is to inherit that movement, and with that the enmity of those in power in Galilee and Jerusalem who were charged with maintaining "Pax Romana"--the "peace" imposed by Roman military power. The arrest of John foreshadows the arrest of Jesus, and foreshadows as well the countless Christian martyrs later to be arrested, tortured and killed by Roman authority in the coming centuries during which our Bible came into its present form.

Last night a friend of mine, a humble Methodist lay person and retired missionary in his eighties, was given a send-off here in Madison as he faces an appearance in a Federal Court for his part in trying to bring the gospel of the peace of Christ to the notorious School of the Americas--a tool of our government's ambition to impose a "Pax Americana" on the western hemisphere. The School of the Americas concerns many Christians that I know because they teach the tools of torture to the militaries of the present day Herod's we favor in Latin America. Christians are still being arrested. . . .

White House comment on the Egg Roll

See the two earlier posts below for background on this topic

This is a quote from the transcript of a recent press conference with Scott McClellan, White House press secretary:

Q Scott, a two-part. There's been extensive reporting of a homosexual group, Soulforce, calling on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual and trans-gender Americans to be the first in line at this year's White House Easter Egg Roll on April 17th, as a way to show the nation their so-called families. And my question: Will the President take any measures to prevent these activists from using this non-political event as a way to push their agenda on the rest of us?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this event is a time to celebrate Easter and to have a good family celebration here at the White House. And in terms of any other details about it, I think it's still a few months off, so we'll talk about it as we get closer. I've seen a couple of reports about it; I don't know how extensive that reporting has been. But this has been a family event for a long time and the President always looks forward to this event.

Three interesting points: 1) McClellan seems to have heard of this story already (even though it has not been widely reported), 2) he seems to be aware that aside from the Institute of Democracy (IRD) and their neoconservative buddies, the "story" has not yet received "extensive reporting." and 3) note how the questioner frames LGBT families as "so-called families"--not a very unbiased reporter!

In other words, IRD needs to work harder to make a story out of this--getting it mentioned at the White House press conference in the form of a question and answer is a way to "make a mountain out of an egg roll." Let's keep our eye on this--it'll teach us how IRD attempts to manipulate the media.

Making a Mountain out of an Egg Roll

It is fascinating to watch how IRD (Institute on Religion and Democracy) and their fellow neo-conservatives are continuing to try to make a news story out of the plans of some lesbian and gay families to join with other families at one of our country's family events--the White House Easter Egg Roll.

They're actually taking up the time of the White House press spokesman, Scott McClellan, to ask, not about the war, not about wire-tapping U.S. citizens, not the response to national disasters, but about plans of some gay and lesbian families with children to join other families with children to roll eggs down the White House lawn.

Yes, Family Pride, Soulforce and other lesbian and gay groups are trying to make a point--our children and grandchildren are real kids who love the Easter Bunny too. If lesbian and gay families with kids are admitted to the event on the same basis as other families with kids, what's the big deal? If the White House says "no, this event is only for families headed by one man and one woman, other families are not welcome" then I think there will be a question to ask Scott McClellan, "Does the White House belong to all Americans or does it belong to the neoconservatives and the theoconservatives?"--I think that is the real issue. I'd like to see President Bush tell the neocons and theocons that they don't own the Presidency or America--this is a much bigger country than that.

I would like to think the White House is bright and mature enough to treat the existence of lesbian and gay families at family events as a non-issue. As I said in the previous post, I don't think George Bush is personally prejudiced against lesbians and gays. It is extremists from the so-called Christian Right who continue to demand that the power of government be employed to punish and exclude whoever does not conform to their narrow views of family life. Bush doesn't need their votes for his next election, and he should ignore them.

IRD Trashes An Easter for all families

United Methodist blogger, Josh Tinley, tells this story pretty well. IRD (the Institute for Religion and Democracy) is a neo-conservative Washington D.C. think tank funded by wealthy secular right-wing foundations and has long sought to destroy the social and political influence of progressive Christians in the mainline churches. One of their favorite tools is the cynical use of homophobia to discredit their targets, but their other targets include Christian peace activists and Christian efforts towards more just economic policies.

IRD is a master of the propaganda tool known as "framing." So it is that Soulforce's attempt to show that lesbian and gay American families and their children can and should share in the family events of our nation is being described by IRD as "crashing" the White House, thus falsely framing Soulforce's plans in violent terms. Lesbian and gay families with their children seek only the same access that other families have to such an event. Frankly, I think it would be smart of George Bush to admit a mixed group of American families. I don't believe George Bush is personally anti-gay. There have been indications that he personally does not share the prejudices being manipulated by the IRD. Unfortunately, his political advisors (notably Karl Rove) like to use the gay "issue" to motivate their right-wing religious base.

My partner, Jim and I, will be Grandpas sometime around Easter this year. It saddens me to think there is any public, civic event in this society where we would not be welcome with our grandchild on the same basis as any other family.

"O Lord, you have searched me and known me."

One of the benefits of following the lectionary in preaching and in personal devotions is that it helps one to struggle with scripture texts that one might otherwise avoid. This Sunday's text from I Corinthians 6: 12-20 brings us into the near context of one of the passages that lesbian and gay Christians often call "the clobber passages" because we find them so often used to condemn and exclude us from the church. I've always found it insulting when people suggest to lesbian and gay Christians that they do not know or have not read these passages. I believe every gay and lesbian Christian knows these passages all too well, and has had to struggle with them one way or another, and has had to seriously and prayerfully search their own consciences about their relationship to God and to their own sexuality. (And reading further along in I Corinthians suggests that heterosexual married folks should be searching their consciences in these matters as well.)

The lectionary also gives us another context--the context of the other readings that are brought together for a given Sunday. Psalm 139 is one of the other readings for this Sunday, and I quote it in the title of this post. The psalmist is aware that he or she can hide nothing from God, that God knows us through and through. There is an ambiguity in the Psalm. On the one hand the psalmist seems to righteously condemn "the wicked" and professes to "hate" those he or she identifies as God's enemies. On the other hand the psalmist then has to ask "is there any wicked way in me?" It is as though the psalmist senses that his/her "righteous hatred" may not be so righteous after all.

We can never be absolutely certain of our righteousness. We must always open our hearts to God's searching and be open to admit our selfish, self-serving and even hateful motives. And, yes, we must be always open to repent and amend our attitudes and behaviors. Lust, selfishness, greed can be present even in those relationships that are outwardly the most socially acceptable--even in "traditional" heterosexual marriages. And, even though Paul may rightly condemn prostitution--scripture gives us examples of righteous prostitutes like Tamar and Rahab. (The same may not be said for their clients, however.)

I Samuel 3:1-20, another of this Sunday's readings also addresses the issue of being open to God's voice. Eli the priest insists that Samuel not hesitate to tell him the truth, even though it seems that he suspects that the truth may not be welcome news. Eli hears the bad news (for his descendants) and accepts it as the word of God. It is always wise to let the light of truth shine into every corner of our lives.

Jimmy Carter's New Book

Currently I am reading Jimmy Carter's new book titled Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis (Simon and Schuster, 2005). I'm still in the midst of it, but I am impressed so far.

Among other things, Carter discusses his decision to disassociate himself from his former denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. Carter is still a Baptist, I gather, and still teaches Sunday School as he did since before (and during) his presidency. The reason Carter left the SBC boils down to the Fundamentalist takeover of that denomination. Apparently among the last straws for Carter were the adoption of a faith statement (or creed?) by the denomination that called for the submission of wives to their husbands and the barring of women from being pastors. Carter also views the imposition of creeds by denominations on local congregations and individual members as running counter to Baptist traditions of individual liberty and the autonomy of congregations.

Brevity requires me to put off getting very far into Carter's views of our political scene, but suffice it to say that Carter sees a big problem with the intrusion into America's political life of the same Fundamentalism that took over the SBC. He discusses, for instance, how the ideas presented in the popular Tim LaHaye "Left Behind" book series based upon pre-millennial dispensationalism and belief in the rapture now influences U.S. policy in the middle east and helped get us into the war in Iraq. This is all part of the "moral crisis" in which Carter sees the U.S.

Of course, Carter went to press before the Rev. Pat Robertson declared to the world that he sees God's hand in the stroke suffered by Ariel Sharon, Israel's prime minister. Surely, Carter would find this an example of the ugly moral tone which Fundamentalism is setting in our nation.

Wisdom of the Middle Way

A reader has commented on my comments about the Virgin Birth a few days ago under the heading "The Baptism of the Lord." He believes in the Virgin Birth, but thinks its probably not a core or essential doctrine. I think that may be the wisdom of the middle way. I think that I too would be offended by someone who insisted that one would be a nut to believe in the Virgin Birth--one way or the other it just isn't that big a deal. To insist one's belief conform to one view or the other on this matter is just unnecessary.

I think the essential doctrine here is the doctrine of the incarnation, of God becoming one with us humans. Paul puts this doctrine rather well with no reference to the Virgin Birth. So, when we are looking for "witnesses" to the teaching about the Virgin Birth we have only two of the four Gospel writers. The "non-witnesses" to this belief include the other two Gospels and Paul. This does not "prove" that Matthew and Luke are wrong, but that the message and work of Jesus can be understood and embraced without taking a "fight to the death" stand on the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. So let's stick with the middle way on this one.

Reaffirming our Baptism

Today at University United Methodist Church in Madison, Wisconsin we celebrated the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord by using the rite for congregational reaffirmation of the baptismal vows that appears in the United Methodist Hymnal. Although I am sure that our Pastor appropriately chose this for today's worship because of the theme for this day, I found it particularly timely because our baptismal vows have been at the center of the latest "blow-up" in the United Methodist Church over the presence of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) persons in the United Methodist Church.

You see, the debate last year shifted suddenly from the exclusion of lesbian and gay persons from the ordained ministry and from marriage to the exclusion of lesbians and gays from the sacrament of Baptism and membership in the church. You see, the first vow in our baptismal rite calls us to "renounce evil . . . and repent your sin." Certain so-called "evangelical" pastors seem to think this excludes what they call "unrepentant homosexuals." Of course, they seem somehow to overlook the fact that not all United Methodists believe that all homosexual practice constitutes sin--if we did there would be no thirty-year long debate in the church. They want not just to require us to take the vow (as every lesbian and gay Methodist is willing to do), they want to make the judgement as to whether we are properly able to take the vow.

One of the lay speakers at University Church, a younger gay man, was asked to speak about the meaning of baptism to him. He spoke movingly of the deep spiritual meaning the sacrament has for him. He did not explicitly refer to the recent flap in the denomination, but he affirmed his faith that the sacrament of baptism is a sacrament of inclusion and not exclusion. This is also the consensus of United Methodist Bishops, but in our polity Bishops are excluded from our "judicial branch." Fundamentalists have found the church's Judicial Council to be the easiest branch of church government to take over, and now that they are in charge they will "legislate from the bench" and banish "unrepentant homosexuals" from the church altogether. They forget that our baptismal vows are made to God and not to the controlling evangelical faction on the nine-member Judicial Council.

This post could use a little more "fleshing out" so I will revise and republish this at a later date and provide some links to pertinent websites regarding this issue. In the meantime I need to go take a walk for the sake of my health.

Brokeback Mountain

The movie Brokeback Mountain opened here in Madison, Wisconsin yesterday. My partner, Jim, just left on a week-long business trip yesterday morning, so I went out to see it with a couple of our friends last night. Jim is planning to see it on the road somewhere. Maybe we'll see it again together when he gets back.

It is a sad movie about two men, Ennis and Jack, who fall in love, but never manage to build a relationship beyond getting together for occasional, romantic fishing trips over the course of twenty years. Jack shares with Ennis his dream of their building a ranch--a home--together, but Ennis rules that out because of his fear of society's deadly brutality towards those it marks as "queer." As a boy Ennis had been forced by his father to see the mutilated corpse of a man who had lived with his male partner on a neighboring ranch, and was taught that this is what happens to "queers." Indeed, events seem to demonstrate that though they are far from "flaunting their homosexuality," Ennis and Jack find it impossible to conceal "the love that dare not speak its name" despite their efforts to conform.

It took courage in the pre-Stonewall years (the story begins in 1963) for two men to build a life together--and some men had that courage. Frankly, it still takes courage. But for Ennis and Jack there was only decades of months and years of separation broken only by the occasional "fishing trip" where no fish are caught, and the fishing gear remains dry. After that first summer when they met camping out herding sheep together on the near isolation of Brokeback mountain, their first, painful separation lasts four years. Both men meet and marry beautiful and good women and father children. Then Jack makes contact again with Ennis and a lifetime of painful separations and brief, joyous, bittersweet reunions ensues.

The same issue of the local entertainment weekly that announced the opening here of Brokeback Mountain carried the story of two gay men being beaten outside a "cowboy" bar in a Madison suburb by "cowboys" who called them "fags." Unlike the Madison police, the suburban police did not seem to take seriously what is, by definition under Wisconsin law, a hate crime. We do have hate crime laws in Wisconsin, and I'm glad of it. I realize some people bizarrely think hate crime laws somehow come under the heading of "special rights" that gays and other minorities do not deserve, as though being singled out for assault because one is a member of a minority group is a privilege. Hate crimes are the means by which society has informally but effectively exercised tyranny over disfavored minorities. Ennis learned this lesson well, and so failed to accept the chance Jack offered him again and again to build a life with the one person he really loved.

Yelling "faggot" at some stranger and beating the crap out of him is the traditional way our culture seeks to keep all gay people in their place, living in fear, hiding in the closet. Just as painting a swastika on a synagogue is more than a simple act of vandalism but an act of intimidation aimed at oppressing a despised minority, "fag bashing" is more than a simple act of assault. Indeed, assaults on gays and other disfavored minorities are often far more brutal than other assaults. It is said that Brokeback mountain is actually located not far from the place where young Matthew Shepard had the life beaten out of him.

Personally, I could claim to have made a courageous choice in "coming out" as a gay man thirty-five years ago despite the fact that that decision slammed the door on my life-long aspiration to "preach the Gospel" as an ordained United Methodist preacher. From time to time I reflect on that choice. I have only to reflect on those I've known who've remained in the closet for the sake of a carreer in the Methodist ministry to reaffirm the choice I made to accept (as Ennis would not accept) the opportunity to build a home (and a family) with the man I love. But I do not claim to have extraordinary courage--it takes some courage in every life just to really live. Ennis and Jack were unable to really live, our homophobic culture tragically robbed them of the opportunity.

The Baptism of the Lord

The Gospel Reading for this coming Sunday, the Sunday we call the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, tells the story of an adult baptism, the baptism of Jesus as he is about to begin his public ministry. This, and not an infancy narrative like those in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, is the first scene in Mark's gospel story.

Fundamentalists have raised the belief in Jesus' Virgin Birth to the level of an essential, core belief--and yet half of our four Gospels never mention the idea, and are able to tell the good news of Jesus Christ without reference to his conception and birth. Since very shortly after my confirmation, while I was still a High School student attending the small rural Methodist church where I was baptized, I found it difficult to recite with the congregation that part of the Apostle's Creed that states "he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary." Just a few years later, while I was a student at the University of Wisconsin, I discovered that the folks who first recited these words from the Creed may have had more difficulty believing that Jesus was born (i.e. that God actually took on real, human flesh) than that someone was born of a virgin. That changed my outlook, and I stopped having any difficulty reciting the Apostle's creed.

Mark's story gives us the same message that Luke and Matthew do in their infancy narrative. Luke and Matthew push the beginning of Jesus' Messiahship back to his conception, but Mark begins with the descent of the dove at Jesus' baptism in adulthood. The Gospel of John has another starting point--the beginning of creation! What all four gospels agree on is a God who is involved in our world--involved to the extent of entering into human reality. Later the Greek orthodox theologians would describe this as the divine becoming human in order for humanity to be led to the divine.

Riding home from the Christmas Eve service at University United Methodist Church in Madison, Jim told me, "I never could accept this Virgin Birth idea." I forget now what my response to Jim was, but what I thought was, "this is another example of how insistence on so-called 'fundamentals' results in people just plain missing the real point of the Gospel."

Imperial Presidency Alert

Friends,

I'm an avid reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog. Although I am a liberal democrat and proud of it, I appreciate Sullivan's brand of conservatism, and especially pay attention when he blows the whistle on the very un-conservative positions of the Bush administration.

Here Andrew Sullivan points out the way the Bush Administration is using "signing statements" in an attempt to undercut laws passed by Congress that the administration seems to be unwilling to enforce. Sullivan called for fellow conservatives to vote for Kerry in the last election. Now he's calling for the Dems to take control of at least one house of Congress in order to put the brakes on Bush's un-conservative power grab.

Time to get married?

Friends,

New Year's Eve Jim and I began to discuss formally "tying the knot." In 2005, two Wisconsin gay couples of our acquaintance have already gone to Toronto to be legally married in Canada, and we helped a third couple of our acquaintance relocate and settle in Canada where they would be allowed to remain together, since Canadian immigration laws would not split them up and force one partner to return to his native Morocco as U.S. immigration laws threatened to do. I love the United States and Wisconsin, and it is a shame that we need to look elsewhere for the simple freedom of forming a family. Here in the State of Wisconsin, the Republican party, urged on by the state-level subsidiary of James Dobson's Focus on the Family is planning on passing an amendment to the State constitution to ban same-gender marriage and the possibility of civil unions. Of course, same-gender marriage is already illegal in Wisconsin, but the Republicans are very anxious to turn out right-wing Fundamentalists to help defeat our Democratic governor this November.

Am I being too cynical? No, I don't think so. Our legislature was all set to place the constitutional amendment on the state-wide ballot last Spring, but that would have been a waste of a good political trick. National Public Radio, this past weekend, carried an interesting story on Wisconsin politics pointing out that the Governor's race this Fall will be an important election on the national political scene.

How is the scapegoating of gays for political advantage any different that the Nazi scapegoating of Jews in 1930's Germany? The United Methodist Church will be ashamed when it finally owns up to its own role in playing along with the anti-gay hysteria of our culture. This is not new--while we can be proud of the few Methodists who worked long and hard to abolish slavery (not the least of whom was John Wesley)--we must not forget the large numbers of Methodists who supported slavery and organized the Methodist Episcopal Church-South. It is the institutional and spiritual descendants of those pro-slavery Methodists who've managed to gain power in our denomination today with a "southern strategy" little different from the Republican "southern strategy" that has proven so effective for secular Republican politicians.

I do not agree with those who believe a northern/southern (or western/southeastern) schism is the answer (and the Good News Caucus has looked back to the Civil War schism with great nostalgia for a generation now). I don't think a geographical schism does justice to the diversity of all regions of the country, including the South. This is also the problem with the so-called Red State/Blue State divide--the divisions run deep through all the states with one side or the other being more or less dominant in different regions.

Sooner or later we do need to learn how to get along. It will be a lot easier when people simply refuse to play along with political and ecclesiastical activists who seek partisan advantage and personal gain at the expense of the common good.

Celebrating a New Year and a Birthday!

Friends,

Last night my partner, Jim, and our daughters and sons-in-law shared a lovely dinner out to celebrate Jim's birthday (which is actually today, January 2nd). Life is good. Jim is now sixty one (and I am not that many years behind!).

I asked Jim if he ever remembered there being a thunder storm on his birthday! The answer is no--but we are having much rain and a little thunder today. I know George Bush doesn't believe in global warming (or, at least he doesn't believe in doing anything about it), but the weather continues to be unusual here in southern Wisconsin. We did have a good bit of snow in the weeks leading up to Christmas, and it got plenty cold, but we've been having a thaw going on for about a week or ten days now. I can remember the traditional "January thaw"--a day or two of warm weather usually in late January that would make some snow melt a little bit and get slushy. But having a long period of thaw during the darkest part of the year is highly unusual, but becoming more usual all the time.

The snow, which had accumulated to about 20 inches, is now almost gone. With no snow-cover and a little sunshine things will warm up more. I should be thankful that our heating bill (and the heating bills of the churches for which I work) will be somewhat moderated, but the downsides of climate change are worrisome. That our government refuses to recognize and address this threat is a shame.