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.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Sunday, June 18, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
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
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
Sunday, June 11, 2006
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:
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!
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.
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.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)