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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Thanks for clarifying. This is what I remember as well, but I wasn't sure enough of my facts, and rarely comment at wesleyblog these days - too much arguing in circles in the comments for my tastes ;)
Steven, you are technically right is suggesting that Soulforce was not the entity leading the protests in the conference center, both in Cleveland and Pittsburgh. Soulforce has generally wanted to demonstrate outside the facility. However, the ties between the "official" UM groups are Soulforce are deep, so it is easy to get confused. That, I think leads to a problem for those who advocate for change in the church. When there are too many groups leading the way, originating a coordinated plan is difficult. It also allows members of anti groups the ability to marginalize the inclusion movement by labeling them as outsiders who are not connected to the UMC. While I appreciate what Soulforce is trying to accomplish, it has been my experience that they've been less than cooperative in dealing with other collegial groups that are more connected to the UMC. I personally think that UMC groups should lead the way in a coordinated action.
Post a Comment