The Theocons

I've recently begun to read Damon Linker's book, The Theocons. The Institute on Religion and Democracy is an organization which exists to promote "renewal" in mainline Protestant Churches (chiefly the United Methodist, Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches), and yet it has a Board of Directors which is largely Roman Catholic. Andrew Weaver has written about this phenomenon.

Roman Catholics prominent in IRD include: Father Richard John Neuhaus, Professor Robert George, Michael Novak, George Weigel. These are not ordinary Roman Catholics, but men with connections to and affinities with the neoconservatives or "neocons," thus the moniker "theocon."

Damon Linker's book, The Theocons makes an important contribution to the many books coming out lately on the topic of the Christian Right. Most of these works focus on the Evangelical portion of this movement. The Theocons gives us a bigger picture which goes a long way to explain the connections between Evangelicals, the Bush White House and neoconservative intellectuals with Washington ties.

Mary had a baby!

"Mary Had a Baby" is the name of an old spiritual. It's also a tune that may be hummed in the Cheney household . Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of the Vice President of the United States, is having a baby with her partner Heather Poe. The Christian Right is, of course, outraged that while there is, no doubt, a sperm donor, there will be no father in this household. Soulforce very helpfully points out that mainstream science would predict that a child raised in the Cheney-Poe household will do very nicely even if she/he may confront from time to time some angry members of the Christian Right.

Same-Gender Marriage--a Heterosexual Invention?

It is now not quite two months since Jim and I were legally wed at the City Hall in Toronto. I've already posted on this blog the homily which I composed for that wedding service. Although the City Hall ceremony is a "civil ceremony" there was a tremendous amount of freedom to craft the service to suit the couple. We chose to use the wedding rite found in the United Methodist Book of Worship. It's a very Episcopalian-like service containing lots of well-crafted prayers. I did some very light editing, but was pleasantly surprised to discover that very little editing was required to remove either sexism or heterosexism.

The familiar introduction of the service refers to the Bible story of Jesus' attendance at the wedding feast at Cana--a story in which "bride and groom" play no part except as the excuse to party! There is also a reference to the biblical analogy that compares the relationship of Christ and the Church to the relationship of husband and wife, but in the modernized United Methodist rite there is absolutely no reference to gender differences between husband and wife, for example nowhere in the rite is there a statement that the husband is "head" of the wife as Christ is the "head of the church."

Someone has already pointed out that modern marriage has already been changed by modern heterosexuals who have removed the gender differences between husband and wife. With these gender differences removed there is no longer any reason to deny marriage to same-gender couples. Heterosexuals, in effect, created "gay marriage," long before gay people began to take advantage of it.

Here is the "Greeting" from the beginning of our wedding service:

Friends, we are gathered together in the presence of the God to witness and bless the joining together of James and Steven in Christian marriage. The covenant of marriage was established by the Creator, who made humanity for companionship. With his presence and power Jesus graced a wedding at Cana of Galiliee and in his sacrificial love gave us the example for the love of one spouse for another. James and Steven come to give themselves to one another in this holy covenant.

And here is the "Prayer of Thanksgiving" from the conclusion of the service--a prayer which I especially liked:

Most gracious God, we give you thanks for your tender love
in making us a covenant people through our Savior Jesus Christ and for consecrating in his name the marriage covenant of James and Steven. Grant that their love for each other may reflect the love of Christ for us and grow from strength to strength as they faithfully serve you in the world.
Defend them from every enemy.
Lead them into all peace.
Let their love for each other
be a seal upon their hearts,
a mantle about their shoulders,
and a crown upon their heads.
Bless them in their work and in their companionship;
in their sleeping and in their waking,
in their joys and in their sorrows;
in their lives and in their deaths.
Finally, by your grace, bring them and all of us to that table where your saints feast for ever in your heavenly home;
through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with you and the Holy Spirit
lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Amen and Amen!

General Conference Delegates

Here's an interesting commentary on the election of General Conference delegates and the way the United Methodist Church is governed. Does this suggest some reforms? For instance, should we forbid "giving anything of value" to General Conference delegates by groups seeking to "lobby" and "buy votes" from delegates? Can we provide delegates from poor countries with adequate support through "nonpartisan" General Conference sources and forbid the use of money to influence votes? African delegates do not have to live under the same Discipline as U.S. United Methodists--non-U.S. conferences have the freedom to modify their own Disciplines, why can't U.S. Jurisdictions have the same freedom?

How about the direct election of lay delegates to General Conference? This would be like the reform that occurred in the U.S. government in the early 20th century (during the Progressive Movement) when we changed the U.S. Constitution to allow the direct election of U.S. Senators, taking those elections out of the hands of State Legislatures. Somehow we could put the names of candidates for lay delegations before all local church members and not just the Lay Members of Annual Conferences.

Republicans aren't gay bashers?

Yesterday on FOX news Newt Gingrich excused House Republicans for their failure to discipline or investigate Florida Congressman Mark Foley when it first became apparent that he was having inappropriate contacts with pages. Gingrich said the GOP doesn't want to be accused of "gay-bashing."

This remark should take the prize for the most ironic and absurd statement of the year. The GOP has actively worked for years to achieve its reputation for "gay bashing." "Gay bashing" is one of their top policy objectives. Just look at GOP efforts around the country to pass legislation barring same-gender marriage.

Newt Gingrich's remark itself is another example of "gay bashing" in that he wants to turn an issue of criminal exploitation of minors into a "gay issue"--the same game the Vatican is playing in their pedophile priest scandals.

Look, the issue was never one of sexual orientation. The issue is one of sexual exploitation of minors. Foley should have been investigated and disciplined. He should have been investigated in a bipartisan manner. Instead the GOP, not wanting to endanger an otherwise safe GOP seat, engaged in cover-up. Now the truth begins to come out at the worst possible time--when will they ever learn?

Yes, We Got Married

The marriage and honeymoon were fabulous. We had a civil ceremony in the Toronto City Hall, but we used a slightly revised wedding rite from the United Methodist Book of Worship. Below is the homily I wrote for the service. (The homily was read by one of our Toronto friends who served as one of the legal witnesses).

Homily from the Marriage Service of

Steven E. Webster and James E. Dietrich

City Hall, Toronto, Ontario, September 1, 2006

Scholars tell us that our Bible preserves traces of an even older literature, written in cuneiform--small wedges pressed into wet clay tablets and baked hard. The oldest written epic known to humanity is The Epic of Gilgamesh the King. In that tale a goddess observes the loneliness of Gilgamesh and, taking clay, she fashions for him a companion, Enkidu. Together they join in many brave adventures and remain loyal companions until parted by death. In our Bible their love song was preserved in these verses from Ecclesiastes:

"Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up the other; but woe to one who is alone and falls and does not have another to help. Again, if two lie together, they keep warm; but how can one keep warm alone? And though one might prevail against another, two will withstand one. A threefold cord is not quickly broken." (Ecclesiastes 4: 9-12, NRSV)

James and Steven, we join today in the celebration of your loving commitment to one another. You have demonstrated the strong bonds that have held you together for over twenty-five years. You have been through good times and bad. You have supported one another in sickness and health. You have nurtured children, and you love a grandchild. Like Gilgamesh and Enkidu, you have joined together in many adventures and have prevailed against strong adversaries.

Your marriage is not for you alone. Marriage is a public act. By your marriage you witness to others the love which is at the core of all true human community. When humankind was made, the Creator said, "It is not good that the human should be alone" and companionship was born. Christ came to the world to redeem human community, and the Spirit still moves among us breathing life into that community.

The love you share is not for you alone. Your love for one another is a sign and a blessing for all who know you.

Here we are in Toronto!

Jim and I arrived in Toronto last night. We're seeing the city today. Finalizing our wedding arrangements for tomorrow. By 3:00 tomorrow we'll be legally wedded spouses!

Gay Pride brings on End Times!

Friends,

I kid you not! Agape Press, an online press service sponsored by Don Wildmon's right-wing Christian American Family Association is crediting a gay pride event in Jerusalem with triggering the current Israeli/Hezbollah conflict, Armageddon and the End of the World!

A little comic relief while I continue to study Bishop Whitaker's paper (see recent posts).

Did I Misunderstand Bishop Whitaker?

Friends,
I'm appreciative of reader comments. This comment from Jonathan merits some consideration:

I think you are misunderstanding Bishop Whitaker's comments. I think the bishop is saying that before we are homosexual or heterosexual, we are all made in God's image. The fact that we are all made in God's image and are God's beloved children is infinitely more important than whether we are homosexual or heterosexual. Bp. Whitaker in no way implies that homosexuals are not created in the image of God.

Admittedly, Whitaker's writing is complex and not easily understood. However, it seems that the word "heterosexual" does not present the same problem for Whitaker as the words "homosexual," "gay" or "lesbian." Can it be that the Bishop can see heterosexuals as in the image of God, but there is something about gays and lesbians that gets in the way of Christians seeing God's image in their lesbian and gay sisters and brothers?

Bishop Whitaker writes a little later:

The traditional Christian view is that turning same-sex attraction into an erotic desire and practicing sexual acts with a person of the same sex are contrary to God’s purposes for human beings. However, this orthodox view can be used as a religious sanction for loathing and fear of those who experience same-sex attraction. Christians should not use the orthodox position as a cover for hatred and fear. Nor should those who disagree with the orthodox view consider those who accept it as bigots or persons who oppose having friendships with homosexuals or the human rights of homosexuals. Christians should always remember that persons who experience same-sex attraction are created in God’s image and possess dignity and human rights.

The Bishop states the problem clearly--the things that a married gay couple might do together in the privacy of their own home "are contrary to God's purposes for human beings," that is, according to the "traditional Christian view." And beginning from this "orthodox position" some Christians go on to express "hatred and fear." They do not "always remember that" gay people "are created in God's image." It seems that the word "heterosexual" doesn't present this problem, and so the Bishop does not suggest we eliminate the word "heterosexual" from our vocabulary.

The Bishop would like to eliminate the words "homosexual," "gay" and "lesbian" because he would like to dissect gay people into at least three pieces: 1) same-sex attraction, 2) same-sex erotic desire, 3) same-sex sexual acts. After dissecting these three parts, he'd like to get rid of a piece or two. The question the good Bishop does not address is whether the patient in this spiritual surgery is likely to survive the operation. I believe that there is ample testimony that many such a patient has died on the operating table. I'm not being all that metaphorical either, when one considers that gay and lesbian people have committed suicide because of the unbearable conflict between their lesbian and gay identity and their (or their family's) religious faith community.

Now, I am not saying the good Bishop is a bad man who wants to hurt people. Clearly he is not. But I believe the Bishop is misinformed about a thing or two. The Bishop knows that the church has been mistaken about a thing or two in its teaching in the past, and mistaken as well about what the Bible requires us to do. The Bishop knows that change is possible for the church too. I would hope that he will eventually see that the church needs to change its understanding of the Bible and church teachings about gay and lesbian persons.

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