Bishop Timothy Whitaker and Spiritual Violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm Back from Colorado Springs!

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

Response to Bishop Whitaker from Miami Beach Pastor

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


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

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

Bishop Whitaker:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bishop Whitacker & "Culture"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Colorado Springs

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

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

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

On the Road with Soulforce

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

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

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

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

Time for an Update

Wedding Bells are Ringing!

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

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

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

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

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

Friends,

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

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

Independent conservative thinker, Andrew Sullivan has this to say.

Minnesota Annual Conference Leads the Way to Equality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppressive "Christianity" in Nigeria, Africa

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

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

Wisconsin Methodists Support Gay Equality

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

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

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

More on Membership in the United Methodist Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soulforce relentlessly seeks equality for gay in the military

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

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

Theocracy or Justice?

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

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

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

"Yes, some things *are* that simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remembering an African Lesbian Activist

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

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

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

Episcopal Bishop Chane on Nigeria

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

More on this later. . .

Nigerian Oppression of Gay Persons

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

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

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

Recent Comments on Soulforce

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soulforce's Equality Ride

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

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

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

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