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.)
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Friday, July 21, 2006
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!
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!
Thursday, July 20, 2006
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."
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."
Friday, July 14, 2006
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 .
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 .
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
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.
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.
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.
Monday, May 29, 2006
Theocracy or Justice?
I was just reading an interesting comment left at Wesley Blog:
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":
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.
"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.
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.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
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. . .
More on this later. . .
Monday, May 22, 2006
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."
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."
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, May 08, 2006
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.
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.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
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:
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)