More Vile

Who Votes at General Conference?

2007-06-30T08:49:00.000-07:00

Friends,

What Annual Conference will have the largest delegation at the 2008 General Conference? Looks to me like the Nigerian Annual Conference beats out the largest U.S. delegation. Nigeria will have 44 delegates compared to the largest U.S. Annual Conference which is Virginia with only 30. The second largest delegation in the General Conference is also from Africa--the North Katanga Conference (in Congo) with 38 delegates.

Nigeria, as you may know, is also the home of the Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola, who has called for draconian legislation criminalizing homosexuality in Nigeria, and denying gay persons the freedoms of speech, association and assembly. The voting power of African delegations at the United Methodist General Conference has been credited with the continuance of anti-LGBT policies of the United Methodists in the United States.

Here's a link to the delegate distribution for the 2008 General Conference.

Transgender Pastor Speaks for Himself

2007-05-31T04:34:00.000-07:00

The Rev. Drew Phenix delivered the following statement in a session of the Baltimore-Washington Conference of the United Methodist Church. Formerly, the Rev. Ann Gordon, Drew Phoenix is a female to male transgender person. The statement is informative and articulate!

Statement to the plenary session of the Baltimore-Washington Conference
May 24, 2007

Last fall, after a lifelong spiritual journey, and years of prayer and discernment, I decided to change my name from Ann Gordon to Drew Phoenix in order to reflect my true gender identity and to honor my spiritual transformation and relationship with God.

My transition to live fully as the male I know myself to be is very personal and deeply spiritual. As a Christian, I worship God – I AM. People frequently asked Jesus, “Who are you?” His response was, “Who do you say I am?” “Who do YOU say YOU are?”

I believe that our spiritual path is, in great part, the answer to: Who am I? I am ...

I realize that my transition may be confusing and surprising for those of you who have known me for years but were unaware of what I was going through. I am glad that I finally have the opportunity to share.

It is my intention and hope that, by sharing my story – my relationship with God and my spiritual journey – we will commit ourselves to becoming educated about the complexity of gender and gender identity and open ourselves to those in our congregations who identify as transgender.

When I was born, society declared that I was a girl, and my parents named me Ann Gordon. But for as long as I can remember I have felt like a boy, acted like a boy, dressed like a boy and wanted to hang out with the boys. And for the first several yeas of my life, my parents let me by my boy-self. In fact, I was referred to by everyone in our small town as my father’s son, Dave Gordon’s son.

So it was very difficult when I reached puberty to be pressured by family, friends, church and community to conform, to dress and act, like a female. At the time (unlike now), there was no language or body of knowledge about gender identity, and certainly no available medical expertise, to help me describe and understand the disconnect I was experiencing between my physical, external self and my internal, spiritual self. I identify as male. The gender I was assigned at birth has never matched my own true, authentic, God-given gender identity … how I know myself.

Fortunately, today, God’s gift of medical science is enabling me to bring my physical body into alignment with my true gender. I am making this transition under the care of an excellent medical team. I am grateful for their expertise. They have been instruments of God’s grace for me.

As I continue to transition, to fully claim myself as a male, I find myself coming home to the Child God created me to be. I find myself joyful, whole, and peaceful. And I find myself even more effective as a pastor.

You may ask what effect this is having on the church I am currently serving, St. John’s of Baltimore City. I can tell you that St. John’s is growing and thriving on its Discipleship Adventure. In the past 5 years, membership has quadrupled, for the first time in years families with children are participating, stewardship has tripled, several new ministries have been initiated, and the congregation has plans to begin renovating its old, historical building in order to be more efficient, effective, and relevant in its vision and mission.

As I have chosen to transition, the congregation has studied, listened, and prayed in order to understand and embrace the meaning of my transition within my call to ministry and within our call as a congregation. My prayer, and greatest concern always is that the congregation continues to grow and thrive.

Gender identity diversity is not easy for most people to understand, as we have been steeped in an either/or, male/female-only understanding of gender. It is hard to believe that our bodies do not tell the whole story about what we are. I assure you that I am not one-of-a-kind, that there are many people like me in our congregations who are suffering with the disconnect that I have felt.

Jesus’ central message is that God’s love and grace extend unconditionally to all of us, not because we look a certain way or have a particular identity, but because we are all children of God created in God’s image. Each of us is a beloved child of God. No exceptions.

Today, in your congregation, in your communities, are young people and adults struggling with who they are and how they fit in. Maybe their families do not understand them; perhaps their friends have isolated them. They are wondering if they fit into the church. As Christians it is essential that we communicate to them God’s unconditional love and their worth and value as children of God made in God’s image. You can begin that process today as I stand here and witness to the complexity and joy of God’s creation.

Institute on Religion and Democracy on Transgender Pastor

2007-05-29T05:05:00.001-07:00

The American Spectator carries an article produced by the right-wing Washington think tank Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). Predictably, the Institute on Religion and Democracy, an organization backed by a lot of non-Methodist right-wingers, has plans to meddle in the business of the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference and the congregation of St. John's Church where Pastor Phoenix has been appointed. Unfortunately, IRD is likely to succeed in spreading their misinformation and prejudice about transgender persons because transgender folks are not well-understood by the general public. I refer the curious reader to my post on the subject which immediately precedes this post (below).

The Institute on Religion and Democracy has experienced a good deal of success in using the struggle for lesbian and gay equality as a "wedge issue" to divide and manipulate mainline denominations--notably the Methodists, Episcopalians and Presbyterians. IRD's backers are threatened by the perceived "liberalism" of these denominations. IRD's loyalties are more with the neoconservative political movement and "big business" than the cause of Christ. Their goals include putting a stop to Christian support for enviornmentalism and the peace movement--a clean environment and world peace are bad for business after all. (Please excuse the irony.)

Transgender United Methodist Pastor Continued in Appointment

2007-05-28T15:16:00.000-07:00

The United Methodist News Service reports that the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference and Bishop John Schol have approved the reappointment of a pastor to St. John's United Methodist Church who is a female to male transgender person.

The term "transgender" is unfamilar and poorly understood by most chuch folks, I suspect, and so I provide the link to the wikipedia article on the subject. As a rather ordinary gay man, I'm no expert on the transgender experience and defer to others to express "expert" opinions. Nevertheless, I am convinced that transgender persons have as much and more to offer the body of Christ to which they belong as do those of us who have always taken for granted that the gender we were assigned at birth defines who we are as male and female.

Transgender persons have probably experienced greater oppression and less understanding than have gay and lesbian people. For one thing they are fewer in number. For another they are less well understood by the general public than gay and lesbian persons. From my experience working with Soulforce, I was struck by the large proportion of violent assaults visited upon transgender persons as compared with gays and lesbians and the apparent fact that assaults on transgender persons are particularly violent and deadly as compared to the assaults on lesbians and gays (which can be really awful).

The wikipedia article cited above raises the issue of whether the transgender experience should continue to be labeled a mental illness, especially since homosexuality has been removed from the official list of psychiatric disorders since 1973. I think our problem is that we don't recognize that "male" and "female" are categories that have a lot of cultural content that does not always reflect what we Christians call the "created order." From rather simplistic readings of Genesis many Christians conclude that "male and female" are clear categories established by God. A close scientific study of God's creation as it actually is, however, reveals that the male-female categories are not always so neat and clear. Many, maybe most, individuals are born with varying degrees of masculinity and femininity. Humans come in all shapes and sizes. When it comes to the physical charcteristics of gender--the genitalia of infants for instance--it is not always easy to determine the gender of newborns. Even more mysterious, there are persons whose sense of self as male or female simply does not match their apparent physical characteristics--and so we have people who feel they are some how trapped in the body of the wrong gender. Simply because a given individual does not fit certain cultural categories does not necessarily make them "ill." For many decades one common treatment for this condition involves hormone treatments and gender reassignment surgery--not to "cure" the person of the feeling of gender that they have, but to bring their body into accord with the gender which the individual identifies as their true gender.

Some folks, I believe wikipedia uses the term "genderqueer" are quite content to live with ambiguous gender--neither entirely male or female. Gender reassignment is not the solution for everyone. Society is troubled with folks who don't fit clearly into either the male or female box--but that is society's problem. Nature and God always defy our neat little categories--that's what makes creation and God so awesome, don't you think?!

The "transgender issue" tends to overlap the "gay issue" because both issues challenge powerful cultural notions of gender. Although I have always been comfortable, as a gay man, with my male body and identity, my choice for a life partner, my husband Jim, violates our culture's gender rules.

Still here!

2007-05-28T14:58:00.000-07:00

It's been a good while since I've posted to this blog. Life has been busy and "the well has been dry" as far as writing goes. Rest assured I am still here, alive and active. Married life remains blissful and the grand-baby has been a real joy. We celebrated baby Jordan's first birthday six weeks ago already!

Right now I'm pondering writing a piece about transgender persons in the church. Coming soon!

The Theocons

2007-01-08T20:10:00.000-08:00

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!

2006-12-08T04:47:00.000-08:00

"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?

2006-10-29T06:42:00.000-08:00

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

2006-10-09T04:52:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-10-02T05:33:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-18T21:11:00.000-07:00

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!

2006-08-31T05:53:00.000-07:00

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!

2006-08-08T04:46:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-08-04T20:41:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-31T07:15:00.000-07:00

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!

2006-07-27T05:02:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-23T06:24:00.000-07:00

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"

2006-07-22T09:03:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-21T07:31:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-20T07:54:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-14T20:45:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-28T21:04:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-18T05:37:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-15T05:04:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-14T04:44:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-11T12:02:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-10T08:17:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-01T19:25:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-05-29T17:13:00.000-07:00

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

2006-05-29T15:50:00.000-07:00

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

2006-05-23T05:05:00.000-07:00

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

2006-05-22T04:49:00.000-07:00

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."

Soulforce's Equality Ride

2006-05-09T09:31:00.000-07:00

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.

The Christian Century: Mark Noll on Slavery & Scripture

2006-05-08T04:58:00.000-07:00

I'm subscribed to The Christian Century whose latest issue (May 2, 2006) contains an article by the evangelical scholar and Wheaton College professor, Mark Noll. Noll's article is titled "Crisis of Interpretation: Slavery and Scripture."

Noll does not make any explicit analogy between the controversy in the churches over slavery and the current conflict over homosexuality, but I cannot help but read his article in that light. Noll affirms what I've already learned on the subject--that the abolitionists were the folks who stood accused of abandoning biblical authority and the pro-slavery side occupied the "high ground" with the bible on their side. The Bible is loaded with pro-slavery prooftexts while the abolitionists could only appeal to general priciples of justice and humanity supported by the "golden rule."

The Civil War seems to many like ancient history, but the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, the Southern Baptist Convention, still bears a name that identifies them with what was the "biblical" (pro-slavery) side of the debate. My own denomination, The United Methodist Church, still bears some of the jagged scars of its own historic division into northern and southern denominations.

I don't know that Noll's article gives us any answers for the current battle over the Bible and homosexuality, but it ought to serve as a caution about how we approach the Bible. The mistakes of the past might make us more humble about the certainty of our positions in the present.

Wedding Plans Move Ahead

2006-05-06T09:01:00.000-07:00

Wedding plans have been going forward for Jim and I. You see, we can be legally married in Canada. Turns out it's not a simple deal--lawyers, registrars, magistrates and all that--but they all treat us like it's a good thing we're doing, something to be congratulated. We've found the same thing visiting jewlers here in Madison to look for a pair of men's wedding bands. Today we bought tuxedos (on sale at Pennys), and the store clerk was also congratulatory. Its all been fun so far.

We haven't set the exact date as yet, but are planning a trip to Toronto. There we will see friends, a nice young gay couple who once lived together here in Madison. They emmigrated to Canada because Canadian immigration laws allow them the right to stay together, whereas U.S. law would have split them forcing one of them back to his country of birth.

I really don't want to leave the land of my birth, but it makes one wonder to see the liberty and respect gay and lesbian persons have in Canada (as well as Great Britain, Spain, South Africa and various other European countries). What's the problem with the USA? We seem to be lacking in religious freedom, since Fundamentalist Christians seem to expect the right to dictate the law for the rest of us.

From an Unrepentant Homosexual Awaiting Trial

2006-05-03T04:11:00.000-07:00

Here is the United Methodist News Service report.
Here is a direct link to Memorandum 1041 which reports and explains the refusal to reconsider decision 1032.
Here is a link to Decision 1032.

Note that this appears to have been a 5-4 decision with not only two bitter written dissents, but a bitter concurring opinion. The Judicial Council has failed to resolve the underlying issue, but instead has aggravated the controversy over homosexuality.

General Conference 2004 spoke clearly in its reaffirmation of bars to lesbian and gay persons in the ordained ministry. It appears now that having "won" that contest, Methodist fundamentalists are emboldened to remove lesbian and gay persons from church membership as well.

This is not an exageration, but rather one of the consequences of decision 1032 mentioned by Judicial Council member Keith Boyette in his concurring opinion to the original decision 1032. In that concurring opinion Boyette argues as follows:

To adopt the position advanced by the rulings of law under review here and by those who dissent would result in the anomalous result that a person who could not affirm the vows of ¶ 217 being admitted to membership and then immediately being subject to discipline as required by ¶ 221. The Discipline does not require such a nonsensical result.

If one turns to one's handy Discipline and reads the paragraph 221 referenced by Mr. Boyette, one finds that the end of that road is either "repentance" or removal from membership either by church trial or voluntary withdrawl. The message of the Judicial Council to lesbian and gay United Methodists is "repent or get out."

Nor can one argue that this decision does not effect persons who attend moderate or progressive congregations that welcome lesbians and gays into membership. The trial process for lay persons is entirely out of the hands of local churches. Remember, folks, that in United Methodist polity the local church is NOT the basic unit of the church. One does not simply join the local church, one joins the United Methodist Church. The Discipline allows for anyone in or outside of a local congregation to bring charges against a lay member, a trial would be held not by the local church, but by the district--and all members of the local church in question would be excluded from serving on the trial court. One would not be judged by one's gay-friendly pastor and fellow congregants, but by strangers from other churches in the District in a proceeding presided over by the District Superintendant.

The Judicial Council has turned all "unrepenant homosexuals" in the church into "unindicted malefactors," into "criminals" who are only one formal complaint away from trial, conviction and removal from the membership of the church. For many this is a stigma that will be unbearable, and they will simply leave the church making trials unnecessary. For others this may be an opportunity for "voluntary redemptive suffering." Following the teachings of Gandhi and King they will stand firmly by the truth as they see it. If this is the law of the church, than the whole church must be brought to the realization of the consequences of their unjust and, yes, unChristian law. Let the church bear the burden of hundreds of trials! Actually, even one such trial is likely to prove to be a very heavy burden for the church indeed.

Such "voluntary redemptive suffering" would not be intended as suffering for its own sake. It would become redemptive as it would finally bring the church to the knowledge of the truth that lesbian and gay persons are God's children too!

"You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose . . ."

2006-04-23T14:12:00.000-07:00

I've been reading Wesleyblog lately. Shane, who owns Wesleyblog, has raised an interesting idea--he thinks Reconciling Ministries Nework and Soulforce are doing a lousy job of representing the interests of lesbian and gay persons, and he'd like to see someone else represent the interests of lesbian and gay United Methodists. This reminded me of that old saying, "You can pick your friends and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friend's nose." However friendly Shane may be, I'm not comfortable having him picking the leadership of the lesbian and gay community of which my family is a part.

Now Shane also tells us he'd really rather not publish anything about about gay people on his blog right now. The subject has been given too much airtime already in Shane's view. But now we see Soulforce and Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN) goad Shane into giving lesbian and gay United Methodists more airtime on his blog--seems to me Soulforce and RMN are doing a great job! If Soulforce and RMN did not already exist, we'd have to invent them.

Judicial Council Reconsiders

2006-04-23T13:37:00.000-07:00

The United Methodist Judicial Council meets this coming week, and we shall learn if they are going to reconsider their decision 1032. As I see it, what is at stake is whether lesbian and gay persons in committed, same-gender relationships can even be members of the Church. Decision 1032 seems to suggest not only that pastors have a free hand to refuse baptism and membership to lesbians and gays, but that those who have membership might face charges before a church tribunal and have their membership removed by a church trial court--the concurring opinion of Judicial Council member Keith Boyette seems to say as much.

Here is some news from the United Methodist News Service about 75 lesbian and gay United Methodist pastors who have signed a letter protesting the Judicial Council's position. Here is another link to an article describing the briefs being considered by the Judicial Council as they weigh whether to revisit decision 1032.

It should be noted that the 75 pastors are having their actual names/identities held in confidence by an attorney. Some folks making comments in the blogosphere (for example, see Wesleyblog.com and comments posted there) are accusing these pastors of cowardice and of issuing an "anonymous" letter. I disagree. The letter is not anonymous--there are 75 real persons who have identified themselves to an attorney. They are forced to have their identities held in confidence by that attorney, because to be identified as gay or lesbian would bring an immediate end to their ministries. There voices in the church would be silenced, they would simply be cast out and shut out.

I believe their witness is a valuable one, because it reminds people that there are more than one or two lesbian UM clergy who have been tried and defrocked--there are many lesbian and gay UM clergy, many of whom who have been forced out of the ministry without "benefit" of a trial, and many of whom still quietly serve.

A Granddaughter is born - and she blogs!

2006-04-20T05:10:00.000-07:00

The new grandbaby arrived on Holy Thursday just before a hailstorm with golfball-size hail. Here's her blog. And baby pictures! The blog is mainly the work of Aunt Nancy, the other daughter (besides Mother Sarah) that Jim and I raised together. I'm very proud of our growing family!

"Misquoting Jesus"

2006-03-21T04:40:00.000-08:00

My most-faithfully-read blog is Andrew Sullivan's. Andrew is interesting. A political conservative (which I definitely am not) who is openly gay, and who voted for John Kerry. I don't agree with Andrew on everything, for sure. Andrew wishes that Bush would have managed the Iraq War more competently. I think a more competent president never would have take us into this war in the first place.

Anyway, Andrew is also a Christian, a Roman Catholic, and he's shown some interest lately in Bart Ehrman's new book "Misquoting Jesus." Today he shares with us a link to this critique of Ehrman by another scholar, Ben Witherington.

Ehrman was an "evangelical" (or maybe, more accurately, a Fundamentalist) educated at the Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College and later Princeton. When he went into the field of textual criticism, his faith in the Bible was apparently shaken. The text was not as reliable as he once believed it was, apparently. So now Ehrman is an agnostic.

This seems to be one of the dangers of being a Biblical literalist--if one's faith is in the text of the Bible rather than in the God of the Bible, one might be setting oneself up for a fall. This is one of the problems of "Bibliolatry"--the making of an idol, or false god, of the Bible. Witherington offers a helpful criticism of Ehrman that might help the lay people who read Ehrman's book from getting too carried away by Ehrman's "revelations"--none of which are new in the field of the textual criticism of the Bible.

"Gospel of Intolerance"

2006-03-17T04:55:00.000-08:00

This opinion piece originally appeared in the Washington Post, but when I went searching for it on the web, I found it on a Pakistani Christian website, a fact which itself shows the global nature of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) struggle for dignity and equality.

An on-line Episcopal friend whom I met at a PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) conference keeps me abreast of the LGBT struggle in the Episcopal/Anglican Church. I believe we Methodists have much to learn here. If nothing else, it is instructive how the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) plays a role in stirring the schismatic pot in that denomination as well as ours.

Of course, the United Methodist Church is even more linked to our African Christian counterparts than are the Episcopalians. African United Methodists cast a growing share of votes in our General Conference. This developing situation in Nigeria raises interesting questions. Our United Methodist Social Principles currently support the human and civil rights of LGBT persons. Are African United Methodists willing to stand for this principle in their own lands? Or will they eventually seek to move our General Conference to remove the more "progressive" aspects of our Social Principles' statements on LGBT persons.

Or is it possible that the influence of United Methodist Social Principles might work in the other direction, urging African United Methodists to speak out against the oppression of LGBT persons in Africa? South Africa, for that matter, under its new post-apartheid Constitution, is now one of the most progressive regimes in the world for LGBT persons. It's one of the growing number of countries in the world that recognizes same-gender marriages.

"Claiming the Promises"

2006-03-06T06:45:00.000-08:00

I mentioned in the previous post that I attended a different United Methodist Church in Madison yesterday. It is Trinity Church, located in the old residential neighborhood south of the University of Wisconsin Campus. I'll be attending there for at least the season of Lent (and maybe a little longer). They are using the curriculum "Claiming the Promises" published by the Reconciling Ministries Network. Seems to me that the prospects are good that this will become the fourth United Methodist Church (out of eleven) in this small city to openly declare it's openess to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) persons.

"When I fall down on my knees. . .

2006-03-06T06:33:00.000-08:00

"When I fall down on my knees with my face to the rising sun, O Lord, have mercy on me" So goes the words of the old folk hymn. Yesterday I attended another United Methodist Church in Madison--probably one of the oldest Methodist buildings in the city. God bless 'em, they've added a lift which will make the building accessible to our differently abled brothers and sisters! But they have not changed the old communion rails. This may be the only United Methodist Church in the city where one can still receive communion the way Wesley preferred we receive it--on our knees! (Though I will add that Wesley himself describes a communion service he conducted where he allowed communicants to freely choose their posture for reception--even so, he was pleased that the majority chose to kneel.)

Of course, the method of reception of communion has nothing to do with our salvation, but the practice of kneeling slows things down a bit and gives one time to really ponder what it is we are about.

Evangelicals: Green or not Green?

2006-02-09T04:47:00.000-08:00

Neoconservative-connected Evangelicals put the kibosh on plans for the National Association of Evangelicals to come out in support of serious efforts to curb global warming. However a prestigious group of evangelical leaders broke ranks with the White House calling for government efforts to address the threat of global warming.

Our good buddies at the neoconservative Washington think-tank, Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD) are deeply involved in this issue. Watch for me to post some more on this issue, but for now let me say I've been seeing this coming for some time. As one who keeps and eye on IRD, I've noticed that they have been involved in critiquing the development of social justice policy by the National Association of Evangelicals, and that they have been developing counter-arguments against taking action on global warming and the environment, generally.

This saddens me, because as a Madison resident and a graduate of our University of Wisconsin, I have taken a good deal of pride in the work of Professor Cal Dewitt, an evangelical and an environmentalist who has worked for many years to convince his fellow evangelicals that God is calling them to be environmentalists. (Calvin DeWitt is quoted in the first Washington Post article linked above.) However, environmentalism is an inconvenience to the powers that be that control the ruling neoconservative wing of the Republican party. Let's pray that evangelicals will continue to break ranks with this power-hungry Washington gang.

Will 1032 lead to schism?

2006-02-07T19:06:00.000-08:00

I'm thankful for the comments I've been receiving on this blog. One reader commented on my post about Bishop Kammerer's motion to the Judicial Council to reconsider their decision number 1032. Decision 1032 grants to pastors "discretion" to deny membership to whoever they choose, and declares that this "discretion" cannot be reviewed or challenged by District Superintendents, Bishops or colleagues. In the case then before before the Judicial Council, membership was denied to a person the Methodist Right calls an "unrepentant homosexual."

I suggested that decision 1032 is divisive and will give further impetus to formally divide the church to cause schism. Does this mean, as my reader suggests, that "the Methodist Left will push for schism if 1032 is not reversed"? I really don't know. I don't speak for "the Methodist Left," and I'm not sure anyone does. What I am saying is that 1032 continues down a road that has put more and more pressure on progressives in the Church. The Methodist Right is making it more and more clear that the Methodist Left is not welcome in "their church."

We went from 1784 to 1972 with no mention of homosexuality in Methodist (or EUB Disciplines). It was not until the 1980's that there was language in the Discipline that clearly barred "practicing homosexuals" from ordination. Then it was only 10 years ago that the blessing of same-gender unions was forbidden in the Church--that was the first time that LGBT laity (as opposed to LGBT clergy or aspiring clergy) were directly effected by anti LGBT policies. Not only that, the anti-blessing policy was the first to interfere directly with the ministry and and worship life of local United Methodist Churches and their pastors. As such it effected non-gay persons as well.

Decision 1032 is the first decision to legitimate, in church law, the exclusion of LGBT persons from membership, and the concurring opinion of Judicial Council Member Keith Boyette, published with decision 1032, suggests that LGBT persons who are already members may expect that they could lose their membership in the church if they do not "repent." IRD's Mark Tooley and Good News' James Heidinger now see the door open to begin church trials to remove LGBT persons from membership and have said so.

"Amicable separation" was first proposed by the Methodist Right at the 2004 General Conference. Confessing Movement leader, Bill Hinson, painted this proposal as a compassionate way to end the suffering of progressive and LGBT Methodists under official church oppression. It appears that their intention is to put more and more pressure on progressive Methodists in order to force them out of the church--there doesn't seem to be much that is "amicable" about that.

Where I stand personally: Schism just doesn't seem right to me. I believe in the unity of the Body of Christ, and think it is a shame that we divide the church. On the other hand, what am I to do if I find my membership is forcibly removed from me? Can the Judicial Council really exclude me from the Body of Christ--or will the Spirit find a way to reconstitute that broken body somewhere else? The early church really began to grow after persecution drove them out of their first home in Jerusalem.

The year of Mark

2006-02-07T19:04:00.000-08:00

I missed posting on the lectionary for the Fifth Sunday after Epiphany. I hope no one was counting on me for sermon ideas! This is the year of the Gospel of Mark, and it seems like we've been stuck in the first chapter of Mark for three weeks now, and we have one more week to go of that before we get to chapter two!

Chapter one is prologue and set up for the rest of the story. The first big controversy doen't happen until chapter two, but there are certain foreshadowings in chapter one. There is the passing reference to the arrest of John the Baptist. It seems, maybe, that John got in trouble because of his popularity and all the crowds that were coming from everywhere to rally to him in the desert. Now, in the later part of the first chapter, Jesus is beginning to go down that same road--gathering huge crowds to him attracted by his ability to heal the sick, and hearing his preaching the coming of the Rule of God.

I agree with John Dominic Crossan who suggests that Jesus was a threat because he provided the crowds an access to God that did not go through "the proper channels" (through the brokers of power). The "proper" religious channels were under control of the Roman puppet rulers, the priestly class, of Jerusalem and all their clients (those who depended on the patronage of the powerful). John the Baptist provided the masses with "a baptism for the repentence of sins." No need to go to Jerusalem and enrich the Temple system--just go to the river and wash. John preached the coming Rule of God--and what will become of Roman rule then? John is arrested, and Jesus goes down the same road. Is it any wonder Jesus is headed for trouble in chapter two?

And then there is the big secret announced in verse one of chapter 1, the secret that the demons keep wanting to cry out--Jesus is the Son of God! Why is that such a secret? Ceasar had public artworks erected everywhere (the mass media of the day) to proclaim that he was the Son of God (Augustus was the son of the divine Julius Ceasar!) Best to keep that secret, Jesus. You'll be in trouble with Ceasar if he should ever hear that one!

Bishop Charlene Kammerer seeks Reconsideration of #1032

2006-01-28T06:52:00.000-08:00

This article from the United Methodist News Service deals with the appeal by Bishop Kammerer for reconsideration by the Judicial Council of their decision 1032. The Council of Bishops unanimously raised their objections to 1032 in a pastoral letter to the whole Church. Some have mistakenly thought that this guaranteed a reconsideration by the Judicial Council. Actually, only parties to the original decision (of which Bishop Kammerer was one, being the Bishop whose ruling on church law was reversed by the Judicial Council) have standing to file an appeal for reconsideration. After hearing the motions for reconsideration, at least five of the nine-member Judicial Council will need to vote for reconsideration before decision 1032 itself will be reconsidered. There is no guarantee that the Judicial Council will reverse itself. This is very much a live issue.

It is almost an understatement to say that this issue is divisive--the Judicial Council's decision received the unanimous rebuke of the Council of Bishops. In effect, the "judicial branch" of United Methodist church government has been rebuked by the "executive branch." Reconsideration by the Judicial Council of its own decision is the only way forward. If decision 1032 stands, expect pressure for schism of the church to build. In effect, the "right-wing" of the church is raising the stakes in the thirty-year debate over the "issue of homosexuality." Until now the "right-wing" was satisfied to exclude LGBT persons from ordained ministry--now the way is opened to simply exclude LGBT people from the body of Christ altogether.

Letter from Bishop Linda Lee on Judicial Council Decision 1032

2006-01-27T04:59:00.000-08:00

[Note: Below is a letter which appeared recently in the Wisconsin Annual Conference Newsletter, Communique. Since, I have not found that letter elsewhere on the web, I reproduce it below. General permission was given to reproduce the content of Communique]

December 2005

Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,

At its fall 2005 meeting the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church made 32 decisions of church law. The structure of the United Methodist Church resembles that of the U.S. government. General Conference is the legislative branch; Judicial Council is the "supreme court." The Council of Bishops is similar to the executive branch but, although the Council has a president, elected every two years, there is no single general officer or executive of The United Methodist Church.

One of the decisions made by the Judicial Council was #1032. This decision included a response to the question of whether a pastor must receive into church membership anyone who is able to receive, affirm and promise to affirm the vow of membership. In this instance, it was a person who is homosexual.

This decision of the judicial body of our Church has caused alarm among what appears to be a significant segment across our membership. In the Council of Bishops there was enough concern about the implications of this decision, that at our November meeting we drafted a unanimous response including the following understanding of our Constitution:

"The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth. All persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, upon baptism be admitted as baptized members, and upon taking the vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members in any local church in the connection."

The first criteria for membership in the United Methodist Church and the Church universal is our relationship with Jesus Christ. Everything else we do and commit to flows from that relationship.

in addition to my understanding that the words of our constitution are clear, I have a couple of other questions about this decision.

I affirm the duty and responsibility of appointed pastors to "exercise responsible pastoral judgement in determining who may be received into the membership of a local church," (Decision #1032). However, I believe the Judicial Council interpretation of this responsibility sets a precedent that allows determination of membership to be based on criteria which are neither Biblical nor Disciplinary. It opens a door that has the potential to set human relations in our nation and denomination back 50 years or more because it allows for an arbitrary standard of church membership that can be easily abused. This decision also has the potential to undermine the covenant of the clergy session and the supervisory responsibilities of Cabinets and Bishops.

This kind of decision by the judicial body of our denomination is serious in its implications for the future membership of our congregations because its effect can be divisive and exclusionary. As we look toward 2006 in the Wisconsin Conference, let us join our hearts and spirits in prayer for our denomination. Let us claim the ministry of reconciliation and witness to God's love, given to us by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Let us be clear in our convictions, open in our hearts, strong in our trust in God and abiding in love for one another. It is by our love that the world will know that we are Jesus' disciples.

"Each of us is now a part of his resurrection body, refreshed and sustained at one fountain - Spirit - where we all come to drink. The old labels we once used to identify ourselves - labels like Jew or Greek, slave or free - are no longer useful. We need something larger, something more comprehensive." (I Corinthians 12: 27)

That more is this:

"You are Christ's body - that's who you are! You must never forget this." (I Corinthians 12: 27)

In Christ's Spirit,

Bishop Linda Lee

The Lord will raise up a prophet . . . .

2006-01-25T05:13:00.000-08:00

The reading from the Hebrew Scriptures in this coming Sunday's lectionary is from Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy seems to suggest that one of the reasons God continues to send prophets after Moses is because the people of God say "If I hear the voice of the LORD my God any more, or ever again see this great fire, I will die." (Deut. 18:16b) That people cannot see and know God directly and absolutely seems to be a theme throughout Scripture. Another example is from I John 4: 12 "No one has ever seen God . . ." and a little later at I John 4:20b ". . .for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen."

The reading in Deuteronomy suggests that we continue to need prophets because we cannot see God or fully know God's Word in a direct way. I believe this is a caution against bibliolatry--making an idol or substitute for God out of the Bible. Why, after all, did the people of God need prophets when they presumably had God's word in the form of the Torah, the law, delivered in writing from Moses (this, of course, ignores the fact that scholars no longer think Moses was the source of that part of the Bible we know as the "five books of Moses.")

This raises another point--"God's word" is no where in the Bible identified with the sixty-six books that we Protestants call the Bible. For Christians the supreme prophet, the very Word of God (see the prologue to John's Gospel), was revealed to us in God's incarnation in Jesus the Christ. Even so, we continue to need prophets to remind us of God's revelation in Jesus, and to continue to reveal to us the word that God is still speaking us today. (I hadn't planned to refer to the United Church of Christ's new slogan, "God is Still Speaking"--but it is an excellent statement.)

For those who believe in Bibliolatry what I am saying here is heresy--and yet I believe the Bible itself tells us that God has more to reveal to us than is contained in those sixty-six books of the Protestant canon of Scripture.

School of the Americas Watch

2006-01-22T14:00:00.000-08:00

Today in worship we had a blessing and send off for Fred Brancel, one of our members at University United Methodist Church in Madison who is traveling to Columbus, Georgia to face trial for civil disobedience against the School of the Americas. Here is a link to School fo the Americas Watch and an article describing the upcoming trial. Fred is 79 years old. I've know Fred since the early 1970's when he worked on the staff of the Wesley Foundation and University Church. Perhaps many more of us will need to follow Fred's example before we can put an end to our government's support for and use of torture.

Mainstream Media on Egg Roll "Controversy"

2006-01-21T07:05:00.000-08:00

Over the last week I've been posting about the right-wing revelation of a "plot" by lesbian and gay families to bring their children to the White House Easter Egg Roll (see below). Here is the first mainstream media report on this "controversy." Pretty well done, I think. The right wing needs to explain why the picture perfect family with two mommies shown with this article are too threatening to be admitted to the event with other families.

Now after John was arrested . . .

2006-01-20T05:39:00.000-08:00

"Now after John was arrested . . ." --this is how this Sunday's gospel reading from Mark begins the first large section of the gospel (1:14-10:52) describing the ministry of Jesus in Galilee. We move from Mark's short prologue (1:1-1:13) into the body of his Gospel. We've learned in the prologue that John the baptizer was attracting large crowds of people to go out into the wilderness to be baptized. Jesus was baptized by John, received the Spirit, and then spent time alone in the wilderness being tested by satan until "after John was arrested."

My political sense tells me that the mass movement that was drawn to John was a threat to the Roman puppet ruler Herod. Jesus is to inherit that movement, and with that the enmity of those in power in Galilee and Jerusalem who were charged with maintaining "Pax Romana"--the "peace" imposed by Roman military power. The arrest of John foreshadows the arrest of Jesus, and foreshadows as well the countless Christian martyrs later to be arrested, tortured and killed by Roman authority in the coming centuries during which our Bible came into its present form.

Last night a friend of mine, a humble Methodist lay person and retired missionary in his eighties, was given a send-off here in Madison as he faces an appearance in a Federal Court for his part in trying to bring the gospel of the peace of Christ to the notorious School of the Americas--a tool of our government's ambition to impose a "Pax Americana" on the western hemisphere. The School of the Americas concerns many Christians that I know because they teach the tools of torture to the militaries of the present day Herod's we favor in Latin America. Christians are still being arrested. . . .

White House comment on the Egg Roll

2006-01-19T05:42:00.000-08:00

See the two earlier posts below for background on this topic

This is a quote from the transcript of a recent press conference with Scott McClellan, White House press secretary:

Q Scott, a two-part. There's been extensive reporting of a homosexual group, Soulforce, calling on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual and trans-gender Americans to be the first in line at this year's White House Easter Egg Roll on April 17th, as a way to show the nation their so-called families. And my question: Will the President take any measures to prevent these activists from using this non-political event as a way to push their agenda on the rest of us?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this event is a time to celebrate Easter and to have a good family celebration here at the White House. And in terms of any other details about it, I think it's still a few months off, so we'll talk about it as we get closer. I've seen a couple of reports about it; I don't know how extensive that reporting has been. But this has been a family event for a long time and the President always looks forward to this event.

Three interesting points: 1) McClellan seems to have heard of this story already (even though it has not been widely reported), 2) he seems to be aware that aside from the Institute of Democracy (IRD) and their neoconservative buddies, the "story" has not yet received "extensive reporting." and 3) note how the questioner frames LGBT families as "so-called families"--not a very unbiased reporter!

In other words, IRD needs to work harder to make a story out of this--getting it mentioned at the White House press conference in the form of a question and answer is a way to "make a mountain out of an egg roll." Let's keep our eye on this--it'll teach us how IRD attempts to manipulate the media.

Making a Mountain out of an Egg Roll

2006-01-18T19:34:00.000-08:00

It is fascinating to watch how IRD (Institute on Religion and Democracy) and their fellow neo-conservatives are continuing to try to make a news story out of the plans of some lesbian and gay families to join with other families at one of our country's family events--the White House Easter Egg Roll.

They're actually taking up the time of the White House press spokesman, Scott McClellan, to ask, not about the war, not about wire-tapping U.S. citizens, not the response to national disasters, but about plans of some gay and lesbian families with children to join other families with children to roll eggs down the White House lawn.

Yes, Family Pride, Soulforce and other lesbian and gay groups are trying to make a point--our children and grandchildren are real kids who love the Easter Bunny too. If lesbian and gay families with kids are admitted to the event on the same basis as other families with kids, what's the big deal? If the White House says "no, this event is only for families headed by one man and one woman, other families are not welcome" then I think there will be a question to ask Scott McClellan, "Does the White House belong to all Americans or does it belong to the neoconservatives and the theoconservatives?"--I think that is the real issue. I'd like to see President Bush tell the neocons and theocons that they don't own the Presidency or America--this is a much bigger country than that.

I would like to think the White House is bright and mature enough to treat the existence of lesbian and gay families at family events as a non-issue. As I said in the previous post, I don't think George Bush is personally prejudiced against lesbians and gays. It is extremists from the so-called Christian Right who continue to demand that the power of government be employed to punish and exclude whoever does not conform to their narrow views of family life. Bush doesn't need their votes for his next election, and he should ignore them.

IRD Trashes An Easter for all families

2006-01-17T04:58:00.000-08:00

United Methodist blogger, Josh Tinley, tells this story pretty well. IRD (the Institute for Religion and Democracy) is a neo-conservative Washington D.C. think tank funded by wealthy secular right-wing foundations and has long sought to destroy the social and political influence of progressive Christians in the mainline churches. One of their favorite tools is the cynical use of homophobia to discredit their targets, but their other targets include Christian peace activists and Christian efforts towards more just economic policies.

IRD is a master of the propaganda tool known as "framing." So it is that Soulforce's attempt to show that lesbian and gay American families and their children can and should share in the family events of our nation is being described by IRD as "crashing" the White House, thus falsely framing Soulforce's plans in violent terms. Lesbian and gay families with their children seek only the same access that other families have to such an event. Frankly, I think it would be smart of George Bush to admit a mixed group of American families. I don't believe George Bush is personally anti-gay. There have been indications that he personally does not share the prejudices being manipulated by the IRD. Unfortunately, his political advisors (notably Karl Rove) like to use the gay "issue" to motivate their right-wing religious base.

My partner, Jim and I, will be Grandpas sometime around Easter this year. It saddens me to think there is any public, civic event in this society where we would not be welcome with our grandchild on the same basis as any other family.

"O Lord, you have searched me and known me."

2006-01-12T04:41:00.000-08:00

One of the benefits of following the lectionary in preaching and in personal devotions is that it helps one to struggle with scripture texts that one might otherwise avoid. This Sunday's text from I Corinthians 6: 12-20 brings us into the near context of one of the passages that lesbian and gay Christians often call "the clobber passages" because we find them so often used to condemn and exclude us from the church. I've always found it insulting when people suggest to lesbian and gay Christians that they do not know or have not read these passages. I believe every gay and lesbian Christian knows these passages all too well, and has had to struggle with them one way or another, and has had to seriously and prayerfully search their own consciences about their relationship to God and to their own sexuality. (And reading further along in I Corinthians suggests that heterosexual married folks should be searching their consciences in these matters as well.)

The lectionary also gives us another context--the context of the other readings that are brought together for a given Sunday. Psalm 139 is one of the other readings for this Sunday, and I quote it in the title of this post. The psalmist is aware that he or she can hide nothing from God, that God knows us through and through. There is an ambiguity in the Psalm. On the one hand the psalmist seems to righteously condemn "the wicked" and professes to "hate" those he or she identifies as God's enemies. On the other hand the psalmist then has to ask "is there any wicked way in me?" It is as though the psalmist senses that his/her "righteous hatred" may not be so righteous after all.

We can never be absolutely certain of our righteousness. We must always open our hearts to God's searching and be open to admit our selfish, self-serving and even hateful motives. And, yes, we must be always open to repent and amend our attitudes and behaviors. Lust, selfishness, greed can be present even in those relationships that are outwardly the most socially acceptable--even in "traditional" heterosexual marriages. And, even though Paul may rightly condemn prostitution--scripture gives us examples of righteous prostitutes like Tamar and Rahab. (The same may not be said for their clients, however.)

I Samuel 3:1-20, another of this Sunday's readings also addresses the issue of being open to God's voice. Eli the priest insists that Samuel not hesitate to tell him the truth, even though it seems that he suspects that the truth may not be welcome news. Eli hears the bad news (for his descendants) and accepts it as the word of God. It is always wise to let the light of truth shine into every corner of our lives.

Jimmy Carter's New Book

2006-01-11T04:45:00.000-08:00

Currently I am reading Jimmy Carter's new book titled Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis (Simon and Schuster, 2005). I'm still in the midst of it, but I am impressed so far.

Among other things, Carter discusses his decision to disassociate himself from his former denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. Carter is still a Baptist, I gather, and still teaches Sunday School as he did since before (and during) his presidency. The reason Carter left the SBC boils down to the Fundamentalist takeover of that denomination. Apparently among the last straws for Carter were the adoption of a faith statement (or creed?) by the denomination that called for the submission of wives to their husbands and the barring of women from being pastors. Carter also views the imposition of creeds by denominations on local congregations and individual members as running counter to Baptist traditions of individual liberty and the autonomy of congregations.

Brevity requires me to put off getting very far into Carter's views of our political scene, but suffice it to say that Carter sees a big problem with the intrusion into America's political life of the same Fundamentalism that took over the SBC. He discusses, for instance, how the ideas presented in the popular Tim LaHaye "Left Behind" book series based upon pre-millennial dispensationalism and belief in the rapture now influences U.S. policy in the middle east and helped get us into the war in Iraq. This is all part of the "moral crisis" in which Carter sees the U.S.

Of course, Carter went to press before the Rev. Pat Robertson declared to the world that he sees God's hand in the stroke suffered by Ariel Sharon, Israel's prime minister. Surely, Carter would find this an example of the ugly moral tone which Fundamentalism is setting in our nation.

Wisdom of the Middle Way

2006-01-10T04:38:00.000-08:00

A reader has commented on my comments about the Virgin Birth a few days ago under the heading "The Baptism of the Lord." He believes in the Virgin Birth, but thinks its probably not a core or essential doctrine. I think that may be the wisdom of the middle way. I think that I too would be offended by someone who insisted that one would be a nut to believe in the Virgin Birth--one way or the other it just isn't that big a deal. To insist one's belief conform to one view or the other on this matter is just unnecessary.

I think the essential doctrine here is the doctrine of the incarnation, of God becoming one with us humans. Paul puts this doctrine rather well with no reference to the Virgin Birth. So, when we are looking for "witnesses" to the teaching about the Virgin Birth we have only two of the four Gospel writers. The "non-witnesses" to this belief include the other two Gospels and Paul. This does not "prove" that Matthew and Luke are wrong, but that the message and work of Jesus can be understood and embraced without taking a "fight to the death" stand on the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. So let's stick with the middle way on this one.

Reaffirming our Baptism

2006-01-08T14:45:00.000-08:00

Today at University United Methodist Church in Madison, Wisconsin we celebrated the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord by using the rite for congregational reaffirmation of the baptismal vows that appears in the United Methodist Hymnal. Although I am sure that our Pastor appropriately chose this for today's worship because of the theme for this day, I found it particularly timely because our baptismal vows have been at the center of the latest "blow-up" in the United Methodist Church over the presence of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) persons in the United Methodist Church.

You see, the debate last year shifted suddenly from the exclusion of lesbian and gay persons from the ordained ministry and from marriage to the exclusion of lesbians and gays from the sacrament of Baptism and membership in the church. You see, the first vow in our baptismal rite calls us to "renounce evil . . . and repent your sin." Certain so-called "evangelical" pastors seem to think this excludes what they call "unrepentant homosexuals." Of course, they seem somehow to overlook the fact that not all United Methodists believe that all homosexual practice constitutes sin--if we did there would be no thirty-year long debate in the church. They want not just to require us to take the vow (as every lesbian and gay Methodist is willing to do), they want to make the judgement as to whether we are properly able to take the vow.

One of the lay speakers at University Church, a younger gay man, was asked to speak about the meaning of baptism to him. He spoke movingly of the deep spiritual meaning the sacrament has for him. He did not explicitly refer to the recent flap in the denomination, but he affirmed his faith that the sacrament of baptism is a sacrament of inclusion and not exclusion. This is also the consensus of United Methodist Bishops, but in our polity Bishops are excluded from our "judicial branch." Fundamentalists have found the church's Judicial Council to be the easiest branch of church government to take over, and now that they are in charge they will "legislate from the bench" and banish "unrepentant homosexuals" from the church altogether. They forget that our baptismal vows are made to God and not to the controlling evangelical faction on the nine-member Judicial Council.

This post could use a little more "fleshing out" so I will revise and republish this at a later date and provide some links to pertinent websites regarding this issue. In the meantime I need to go take a walk for the sake of my health.

Brokeback Mountain

2006-01-07T10:15:00.000-08:00

The movie Brokeback Mountain opened here in Madison, Wisconsin yesterday. My partner, Jim, just left on a week-long business trip yesterday morning, so I went out to see it with a couple of our friends last night. Jim is planning to see it on the road somewhere. Maybe we'll see it again together when he gets back.

It is a sad movie about two men, Ennis and Jack, who fall in love, but never manage to build a relationship beyond getting together for occasional, romantic fishing trips over the course of twenty years. Jack shares with Ennis his dream of their building a ranch--a home--together, but Ennis rules that out because of his fear of society's deadly brutality towards those it marks as "queer." As a boy Ennis had been forced by his father to see the mutilated corpse of a man who had lived with his male partner on a neighboring ranch, and was taught that this is what happens to "queers." Indeed, events seem to demonstrate that though they are far from "flaunting their homosexuality," Ennis and Jack find it impossible to conceal "the love that dare not speak its name" despite their efforts to conform.

It took courage in the pre-Stonewall years (the story begins in 1963) for two men to build a life together--and some men had that courage. Frankly, it still takes courage. But for Ennis and Jack there was only decades of months and years of separation broken only by the occasional "fishing trip" where no fish are caught, and the fishing gear remains dry. After that first summer when they met camping out herding sheep together on the near isolation of Brokeback mountain, their first, painful separation lasts four years. Both men meet and marry beautiful and good women and father children. Then Jack makes contact again with Ennis and a lifetime of painful separations and brief, joyous, bittersweet reunions ensues.

The same issue of the local entertainment weekly that announced the opening here of Brokeback Mountain carried the story of two gay men being beaten outside a "cowboy" bar in a Madison suburb by "cowboys" who called them "fags." Unlike the Madison police, the suburban police did not seem to take seriously what is, by definition under Wisconsin law, a hate crime. We do have hate crime laws in Wisconsin, and I'm glad of it. I realize some people bizarrely think hate crime laws somehow come under the heading of "special rights" that gays and other minorities do not deserve, as though being singled out for assault because one is a member of a minority group is a privilege. Hate crimes are the means by which society has informally but effectively exercised tyranny over disfavored minorities. Ennis learned this lesson well, and so failed to accept the chance Jack offered him again and again to build a life with the one person he really loved.

Yelling "faggot" at some stranger and beating the crap out of him is the traditional way our culture seeks to keep all gay people in their place, living in fear, hiding in the closet. Just as painting a swastika on a synagogue is more than a simple act of vandalism but an act of intimidation aimed at oppressing a despised minority, "fag bashing" is more than a simple act of assault. Indeed, assaults on gays and other disfavored minorities are often far more brutal than other assaults. It is said that Brokeback mountain is actually located not far from the place where young Matthew Shepard had the life beaten out of him.

Personally, I could claim to have made a courageous choice in "coming out" as a gay man thirty-five years ago despite the fact that that decision slammed the door on my life-long aspiration to "preach the Gospel" as an ordained United Methodist preacher. From time to time I reflect on that choice. I have only to reflect on those I've known who've remained in the closet for the sake of a carreer in the Methodist ministry to reaffirm the choice I made to accept (as Ennis would not accept) the opportunity to build a home (and a family) with the man I love. But I do not claim to have extraordinary courage--it takes some courage in every life just to really live. Ennis and Jack were unable to really live, our homophobic culture tragically robbed them of the opportunity.

The Baptism of the Lord

2006-01-04T05:31:00.000-08:00

The Gospel Reading for this coming Sunday, the Sunday we call the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, tells the story of an adult baptism, the baptism of Jesus as he is about to begin his public ministry. This, and not an infancy narrative like those in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, is the first scene in Mark's gospel story.

Fundamentalists have raised the belief in Jesus' Virgin Birth to the level of an essential, core belief--and yet half of our four Gospels never mention the idea, and are able to tell the good news of Jesus Christ without reference to his conception and birth. Since very shortly after my confirmation, while I was still a High School student attending the small rural Methodist church where I was baptized, I found it difficult to recite with the congregation that part of the Apostle's Creed that states "he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary." Just a few years later, while I was a student at the University of Wisconsin, I discovered that the folks who first recited these words from the Creed may have had more difficulty believing that Jesus was born (i.e. that God actually took on real, human flesh) than that someone was born of a virgin. That changed my outlook, and I stopped having any difficulty reciting the Apostle's creed.

Mark's story gives us the same message that Luke and Matthew do in their infancy narrative. Luke and Matthew push the beginning of Jesus' Messiahship back to his conception, but Mark begins with the descent of the dove at Jesus' baptism in adulthood. The Gospel of John has another starting point--the beginning of creation! What all four gospels agree on is a God who is involved in our world--involved to the extent of entering into human reality. Later the Greek orthodox theologians would describe this as the divine becoming human in order for humanity to be led to the divine.

Riding home from the Christmas Eve service at University United Methodist Church in Madison, Jim told me, "I never could accept this Virgin Birth idea." I forget now what my response to Jim was, but what I thought was, "this is another example of how insistence on so-called 'fundamentals' results in people just plain missing the real point of the Gospel."

Imperial Presidency Alert

2006-01-03T05:38:00.000-08:00

Friends,

I'm an avid reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog. Although I am a liberal democrat and proud of it, I appreciate Sullivan's brand of conservatism, and especially pay attention when he blows the whistle on the very un-conservative positions of the Bush administration.

Here Andrew Sullivan points out the way the Bush Administration is using "signing statements" in an attempt to undercut laws passed by Congress that the administration seems to be unwilling to enforce. Sullivan called for fellow conservatives to vote for Kerry in the last election. Now he's calling for the Dems to take control of at least one house of Congress in order to put the brakes on Bush's un-conservative power grab.

Time to get married?

2006-01-02T11:45:00.000-08:00

Friends,

New Year's Eve Jim and I began to discuss formally "tying the knot." In 2005, two Wisconsin gay couples of our acquaintance have already gone to Toronto to be legally married in Canada, and we helped a third couple of our acquaintance relocate and settle in Canada where they would be allowed to remain together, since Canadian immigration laws would not split them up and force one partner to return to his native Morocco as U.S. immigration laws threatened to do. I love the United States and Wisconsin, and it is a shame that we need to look elsewhere for the simple freedom of forming a family. Here in the State of Wisconsin, the Republican party, urged on by the state-level subsidiary of James Dobson's Focus on the Family is planning on passing an amendment to the State constitution to ban same-gender marriage and the possibility of civil unions. Of course, same-gender marriage is already illegal in Wisconsin, but the Republicans are very anxious to turn out right-wing Fundamentalists to help defeat our Democratic governor this November.

Am I being too cynical? No, I don't think so. Our legislature was all set to place the constitutional amendment on the state-wide ballot last Spring, but that would have been a waste of a good political trick. National Public Radio, this past weekend, carried an interesting story on Wisconsin politics pointing out that the Governor's race this Fall will be an important election on the national political scene.

How is the scapegoating of gays for political advantage any different that the Nazi scapegoating of Jews in 1930's Germany? The United Methodist Church will be ashamed when it finally owns up to its own role in playing along with the anti-gay hysteria of our culture. This is not new--while we can be proud of the few Methodists who worked long and hard to abolish slavery (not the least of whom was John Wesley)--we must not forget the large numbers of Methodists who supported slavery and organized the Methodist Episcopal Church-South. It is the institutional and spiritual descendants of those pro-slavery Methodists who've managed to gain power in our denomination today with a "southern strategy" little different from the Republican "southern strategy" that has proven so effective for secular Republican politicians.

I do not agree with those who believe a northern/southern (or western/southeastern) schism is the answer (and the Good News Caucus has looked back to the Civil War schism with great nostalgia for a generation now). I don't think a geographical schism does justice to the diversity of all regions of the country, including the South. This is also the problem with the so-called Red State/Blue State divide--the divisions run deep through all the states with one side or the other being more or less dominant in different regions.

Sooner or later we do need to learn how to get along. It will be a lot easier when people simply refuse to play along with political and ecclesiastical activists who seek partisan advantage and personal gain at the expense of the common good.

Celebrating a New Year and a Birthday!

2006-01-01T10:57:00.000-08:00

Friends,

Last night my partner, Jim, and our daughters and sons-in-law shared a lovely dinner out to celebrate Jim's birthday (which is actually today, January 2nd). Life is good. Jim is now sixty one (and I am not that many years behind!).

I asked Jim if he ever remembered there being a thunder storm on his birthday! The answer is no--but we are having much rain and a little thunder today. I know George Bush doesn't believe in global warming (or, at least he doesn't believe in doing anything about it), but the weather continues to be unusual here in southern Wisconsin. We did have a good bit of snow in the weeks leading up to Christmas, and it got plenty cold, but we've been having a thaw going on for about a week or ten days now. I can remember the traditional "January thaw"--a day or two of warm weather usually in late January that would make some snow melt a little bit and get slushy. But having a long period of thaw during the darkest part of the year is highly unusual, but becoming more usual all the time.

The snow, which had accumulated to about 20 inches, is now almost gone. With no snow-cover and a little sunshine things will warm up more. I should be thankful that our heating bill (and the heating bills of the churches for which I work) will be somewhat moderated, but the downsides of climate change are worrisome. That our government refuses to recognize and address this threat is a shame.

Looking to the Redemption of Jerusalem

2005-12-28T07:38:00.000-08:00

For the Sunday after Christmas, January 1, 2006, we read in Luke of two prophets, Simeon and Anna. In these persons we again are reminded of the roots of our Christian story in the ancient story of the Hebrews. The Holy Family goes up to Jerusalem to make the sacrifice in the Temple specified in the law of Moses for poor persons.

The Temple plays a prominent role in Luke, not only in the Gospel, but also in Acts, even though, by the time Luke is writing, the Temple has been recently destroyed. Anna receives only brief mention, and her words are not quoted directly. She is very old--at least 84, but depending on whether 84 is the number of years she has been widowed, maybe she is 105. In any case it strikes me that she is old enough to remember the Roman general Pompey's seige of Jerusalem and desecration of the Temple in 63 B.C.E. Does Luke have this in mind?

Could it be that Anna's husband was one of the Jewish defenders who were slain in the Temple as Pompey's soldiers broke in? Could this explain Anna's devoted attention to the Temple and her "looking for the redemption of Jerusalem"? Perhaps the evidence for this is a little thin, but it would explain Luke's close attention to the specifics of Anna's age, and especially the explicit reference to her age at the time of her husband's death. This, of course, would not be the first reference in this nativity story to Roman occupation--the birth narrative itself is dated by a Roman census and a reference to the Emperor.

Luke does not place his story in a mythic place or a mythic time, but in a time and place that seems to be real, and for his readers, relatively recent. As with the birth narrative, this story places Jesus in the midst of our messy, suffering world. Where does Christ appear in our world today?

Nativity of our Lord - Revised Version

2005-12-23T07:30:00.000-08:00

According to the lectionary I am consulting there are three sets of readings for Christmas Eve - Christmas Day. If I weren't so busy working in two church offices (Covenant Presbyterian Church and Bethany United Methodist Church--both on the west side of Madison, Wisconsin), I'd comment on all three, but as it is I will focus on the first set of readings. Needless to say, the holidays and end of year is a busy time for those of us involved in church accounting and the production of worship bulletins.

Many Christians (as well as others) are sick of "politics." I suppose that is because government can be an obnoxious nuisance. We look to spirituality and the church for transcendence--we want to get above all the daily unpleasantness of this world and instead experience union with the divine. But if we really read and understand Scripture it brings us crashing down to the messy and smelly "real world." Just read Luke's version of the Nativity . Really read it! Imagine Joseph & Mary realizing that the government will require them to make this journey with Mary nearly full term! Imagine the desperate search for shelter. Imagine what the stable must have smelled like (easy for this former farm boy). Had it not been for an oppressive and intrusive government, Jesus would not have been born in a stable in Bethlehem. He would not have fulfilled the prophecy that he would be born in David's home town. For that matter, titles like "messiah," and "Lord" are political titles. It occurs to me that even the title "Savior" in the context of this story must have political implications. In this context Luke doesn't seem to be talking about merely the individual salvation of souls, but the salvation of the whole people of God (if not, more specifically, Israel).

It strikes me that this season is one which strangely combines the joy of fulfillment and the longing hope for a fulfillment that is yet to be. Some of the Advent readings refer even to the "Second Advent" - the ultimate redemption of the whole world, the reconciliation of all things in God. Jesus came to us on a Christmas long ago (even if the day was not December 25). And on December 26th we continue to wait for Jesus to come again.

I receive my first comment!

2005-12-18T04:58:00.000-08:00

Apparently I have readers--or at least one. A fellow United Methodist blogger noticed my use of the term LGBT (i.e. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) and has asked me to explain the significance of "bisexual." The use of that acronymn or phrase LGBT is intended to be inclusive. My understanding is that what all of us designated by those letters have in common is the challenge we raise to our culture's "traditional" gender roles. All of the rhetoric about "God made Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve" and it's variations expresses our culture's anxieties about appropriate gender roles and behavior.

While LGBT people have this challenge to gender roles in common, we may not have that much else in common. So it is that I need to confess that I am no expert on the L, B or T segments of the coalition. I have found this interesting article on the Religious Tolerance.org website which has some interesting things to say about misunderstandings that some conservative Christians may have about bisexuality. I think the biggest problem is that some conservative Christians make the assumption that "bisexuality" must, by definition, mean promiscuity. They are wrong. As the article suggests, a bisexual person may have attractions to individuals of both sexes, and yet still remain faithful to one partner (who may be either of the same or other sex). There is no requirement to alternate the genders of ones sexual partners in order to remain a bisexual in good standing.

In fact, as the article suggests, some "ex-gays" (so-called) may simply be bisexuals who now have settled down with a partner of the gender approved by their conservative Christian friends.

The Fourth Sunday in Advent

2005-12-17T16:32:00.000-08:00

The lectionary for the Sunday before Christmas reminds me how deeply rooted in what we call the "Old Testament" (or "the Hebrew Scriptures") our faith is. Mary's Song, the Magnificat, seems to be modeled on the psalms and songs of the Hebrew Scriptures.

And then there is this piece from the Gospel Lesson:

He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." [Luke 1:32-33]

The Gospel lesson refers back to the reign of King David. The Messiah will restore the glory of David. What does this mean? Isn't it interesting that the lesson from II Samuel has God reminding David of his humble origins. God reminds David that David is not a "self-made man," but owes his wealth and fame to God (as all with any wealth and fame do). The texts play up the tensions between wealth and poverty, kingly pride and humble circumstances.

Now when the king was settled in his house, and the LORD had given him rest from all his enemies around him, the king said to the prophet Nathan, "See now, I am living in a house of cedar, but the ark of God stays in a tent." Nathan said to the king, "Go, do all that you have in mind; for the LORD is with you." But that same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan: Go and tell my servant David: Thus says the LORD: Are you the one to build me a house to live in? I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about in a tent and a tabernacle. Wherever I have moved about among all the people of Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of the tribal leaders of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying, "Why have you not built me a house of cedar?" [II Samuel 7:1-7]

This passage seems full of irony. God challenges David's assumptions about the appropriateness of building a temple, a house for God. God is the God of a nomadic people, living in tents. God is not the God of the people who live in palaces--or, at least, God is not about to be confined in a fancy house provided by this wealthy, royal benefactor.

Rooted in God

2005-12-09T05:08:00.000-08:00

The lectionary from this Sunday includes the following:

Isaiah 61:11 For as the earth brings forth its shoots, and as a garden causes what is sown in it to spring up, so the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise to spring up before all the nations.

This third Sunday of Advent we are reading this passage from Isaiah in the context of a Gospel Lesson which consists of the Mary's Song of Praise which is called "Magnificat."

He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty.

How can one preach from the lectionary and not preach the Social Gospel? Those politicians in Washington (and Madison) who make a big show of their religious piety by denying equality to lesbians and gays, and then cut tax deals for "the rich" while sending the hungry away empty are not rooted in the God which Isaiah and Mary knew. Those among us who would force merchants to say "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays," seem unconcerned that many of our fellow citizens must choose between "heat or eat" this season. Could it be that Isaiah and Mary's God is guilty of "class warfare"? Or has the warfare already ended and "the rich" have won in the end? What do we need to do to be truly rooted in God again?

Text of Rocky Mountain Conference Clergy Statement

2005-12-08T05:19:00.000-08:00

Below is the text of the ad paid for and signed by Bishop Warner H Brown, Jr. and 124 clergy members of the Rocky Mountain Conference. See my post from yesterday for a reference to the Denver Post article reporting on this bold action.

"As United Methodist Clergy serving as Spiritual Leaders in the Rocky Mountain Conference, we stand in public opposition to the recent Judicial Council ruling of the United Methodist Church giving a clergyperson in Virginia the authority to deny church membership to an individual based on sexual identity.

"We proclaim our vigorous disagreement with this act of injustice by the highest judicial body of our denomination. The United Methodist Church is committed to inclusiveness; and inclusiveness denies every semblance of discrimination. The vision of hospitality for our church is Open Hearts, Open Minds, and Open Doors."

The conservative Wesley Blog gives us a parade example of conservative whining. I don't mean to be mean, but it seems to me that conservatives like to accuse progressives of whining when they engage in a good deal of it themselves. In this case Shane complains that the Denver Post's article did not have, in his opinion, the proper spin and that the Denver Post should not have reported the story at all because it represents a conflict of interest to report on the doings of an advertiser (in this case the 124 clergy signing the ad who paid $100 a piece for the privilege of making this public statement). Don't buy into Shane's own "spin," but read the article yourself--it reads like a proper news story reporting the facts and seeking quotes from spokespeople on "both sides" concluding with a comment from a regular operative in the "Republican Noise Machine," ex-CIA agent, Mark Tooley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.

Shane is certainly within his rights to criticize the actual position taken by the 124 Rocky Mountain clergy, but whining about the way the action was reported, or that it was reported at all, seems to me not to contribute to the dialogue now going on in the church. As it is, Shane seems to be "spinning" himself--trying to discount or minimize the plain fact that 124 clergy, including a Bishop, have taken a clear and courageous stand against the activist Judicial Council's legislating the closure of the United Methodist "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors."

Hooray for Rocky Mountain Conference Clergy

2005-12-07T05:38:00.000-08:00

Here is what a large group of United Methodist Clergy in the Rocky Mountain Conference did in response to Judicial Council Decision 1032: Methodist Clergy Blast Gay Exclusion. "Judicial Activism" by our Judicial Council is leading to an activist response from pew and pulpit.

Growing Effort to Overturn Judicial Council Decision 1032

2005-12-07T04:50:00.001-08:00

Friends,
A new website dedicated to overturning Judicial Council Decision 1032, this one cosponsored by the United Methodist Federation for Social Action, is called "Here We Stand". This joins the other excellent website that appeared earlier this week sponsored by an ad hoc group of individuals called "Welcome One Another". I encourage folks to support both efforts.

It is a sign of the growth of a genuine grassroots movement that many and varied organized efforts seem to be springing up spontaneously. Every supporter of LGBT equality in the United Methodist Church needs to take some personal initiative to make their voice heard. Sustained efforts aimed at making the "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors" theme a reality in the United Methodist Church are needed. Heterosexism is a complicated issue requiring many creative approaches.

Our adversaries like to appeal to the Discipline--but they do not acknowledge that the Discipline cuts both ways. What part of "we implore . . . churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members. . ." [see 2004 Discipline, para. 161G" Pastor Johnson, whose refusal to admit a baptized member of another Christian congregation to membership in the United Methodist Church, not only refused to accept his Bishop's direction to admit the man, he refused to accept the General Conference's expressed desire "not to reject" lesbian and gay persons from the Church. The Judicial Council in decision 1032 usurped the power of the General Conference to legislate for the Church, and threatens to reject all all lesbian and gay members from the Church.

Another aspect of this case that has not been addressed is the way the withholding of church membership is a clear form of "coercion." Our Discipline states, "Moreover we support efforts to stop violence and other forms of coercion against gays and lesbians" [para. 162H]. Pastor Johnson was telling this gay man that he had to become either heterosexual or celibate OR ELSE he could not be a member of the church. This is a clear example of the type of coercion that the major professional associations of psychologists and psychiatrists reject as unethical.

Expanding Right-Wing Universe

2005-12-06T05:48:00.002-08:00

Friends,
This clickable map of Christian Right organizations has been passed along to me. Those of us in Wisconsin are currently being trounced in the legislature by one of Focus on The Families' 32 state level operations, the Wisconsin Family Research Institute. This graphic gives you an idea of what we are up against in this nation. Click on the "heavenly bodies" and see the websites of the organizations.

The Expanding Christian Right Universe

Website Aims to Overturn Judicial Council Decision 1032

2005-12-05T05:46:00.000-08:00

Friends,
Please check out Welcome One Another. This is the best effort I've seen on the internet so far to mobilize United Methodists on line to push for the reversal of Judicial Council Decision 1032 which grants authority (and even encourages) pastors to exclude lesbian and gay persons from membership in the church.

"Clear the Road!"

2005-12-03T12:09:00.000-08:00

Here is the lesson from the prophets for Sunday, December 4th which is also quoted in part in the Gospel lesson. The scholarly notes I find in The New Interpreters Study Bible informs us that the prophet composing this passage is the one known to scholars as "Second Isaiah" who lived with the exiles in Babylon as they were looking forward to their return to Jerusalem. The prophet envisions a road being cleared through the deserts and mountains that lie between Babylon and Jerusalem facilitating the return to the Holy City (Jerusalem) which represents the presence of God among God's people.

God is depicted as an ideal ruler, "[God] will feed his flock like a shepherd; he will gather the lambs in his arms, and carry them in his bosom, and gently lead the mother sheep." The image of the shepherd was a common image for the role of King. One challenge we face in understanding scripture in our own time is translating concepts like "king" in a world dominated by democracies. Now-a-days the people are Sovereign and act through their governments. The prophets would expect good government, either through monarchy or democracy, to behave like a good shepherd to its people, caring for "the lambs and mother sheep" especially. But Jerusalem is the ideal and Babylon is the unfortunate reality. How shall we clear the road that will bring us to Jerusalem? Pehaps we aren't up to the task. The advent season reminds us that sometimes we must wait on God to bring about the "beloved community" in God's own time.

More on Roman Catholic Discrimination against Gay Priests

2005-12-03T07:48:00.000-08:00

Here is the link to one published translation of the Vatican's new policy on ordination barring the ordination of priests with a homosexual orientation. Please note that this is a much more restrictive policy than that currently in force in the United Methodist Church in that a commitment to celibacy is no longer adequate. (The Rev. Beth Stroud was told, for instance, that she would not have been defrocked by a United Methodist Trial Court had she vowed to be celibate). Now, according to the Catholic Church, having "profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies" is now sufficient to bar a homosexual man from Holy Orders. It seems clear that simply having a homosexual orientation excludes one from ordination.

The logic of this new policy seems to be grounded in the same gender ideology that already bars all women from the Roman Catholic diaconate and priesthood. Here I quote from the translation linked above:

"According to the constant Tradition of the Church, baptized males alone may validly receive Holy Orders. By means of the sacrament of Orders, the Holy Spirit configures the candidate, to a new and specific role, Jesus Christ: the priest, in fact, sacramentally represents Christ, Head, Shepherd, and Bridegroom of the Church. Because of this configuration to Christ, the entire life of the holy priest must be animated by the gift of his whole person to the Church and with an authentic pastoral love.

"The candidate for ordained ministry, therefore, must reach emotional maturity. That maturity renders him able to put himself in the proper relation with men and women, developing in him a true sense of spiritual fatherhood toward the ecclesial community entrusted to him."

As I see it, this new policy seems to assume the validity of the old, psychoanalytic theory that "homosexual tendencies" represent a "fixation" at an immature phase of development. Homosexuals are assumed to be unable to be "in the proper relation with men and women" and unable to develop a "true sense of spiritual fatherhood." In other words, homosexual men are not capable of being "real men" and therefore are incapable of "validly receiving Holy Orders." Homosexual men cannot be ordained for the same reason that women cannot be ordained. The Roman Catholic Church seems to be saying, "Neither a woman nor a homosexual male can 'sacramentally represent Christ, Head, Shepherd, and Bridegroom of the Church' because they don't belong to the proper gender since these titles (Christ, Head, Shepherd, Bridegroom) all are gendered as male.

Please see Andrew Sullivan's blog for Friday, December 2, 2005 for his more thorough analysis of this development. Andrew provides many links to other analysis on the subject.

Latest News on Decision 1032

2005-12-01T05:33:00.000-08:00

Friends, the United Methodist News Service has published four new articles on November 29th updating us on the state of the controversy over Judicial Council Decision 1032. Here are the links. I'll add my commentary here later.

"Judicial Council Decisions Stir Debate across the Church" As you can see, this decision has stirred up very widespread debate. Here in Madison I know of three local churches that have issued LGBT-supportive comments in their church Newsletter. The Bishops' Pastoral Letter apparently opposing the Judicial Council decision has led the way.

"Two Judicial Council Members Add Opinions to Decision"
One Judicial Council member, Judge John Gray, is actually a sitting judge in Kansas City. "Judge" is his secular title, not a title used of Judicial Council members. Gray's dissenting opinion accuses the majority of "legislating from the bench."

And following are the obligatory "Pro & Con" commentaries:

"Commentary: Council Stands Guilty of Legislating from the Bench"

"Commentary: Judicial Council Ruled Properly in Virgina Pastor Case"

Pope Promotes Heterosexism

2005-11-30T05:47:00.000-08:00

This morning I listened on the radio to portions of yesterday's hearings in the Wisconsin legislature on the same-gender marriage/Civil Union ban. It was a sad day.

Worse still, the Pope's most recent pronouncements on homosexuality bode ill for the future of all LGBT Christians. This is a link to an excellent article (aptly titled "Gland Inquisitor") providing an analysis of the development of the recently announced policy on gay priests and how this reflects the Pope's view of homosexuality.

I need to write more about this, but I offer a quick response here. The Pope's view is deeply grounded in a profound heterosexism. The pope seems to suggest that homosexuals are so sub-human that they can offer no positive value to society at all. Any form of discrimination is justified in order to limit the harm that this "disorder" can do to society.

More comment on this in the near future.

Anti-same gender Union Amendment in Wisconsin

2005-11-29T05:54:00.000-08:00

Soon this morning Jim and I will be going down to our State Capitol to a hearing in order to register our opposition to an amendment to the State Constitution that would forbid same gender marriages or anything that is similar (e.g. Civil Unions). In the meantime we keep hearing of friends going to Canada to legally "tie the knot." I look forward to the day when we don't need to leave American soil to be free.

Comfort ye, my people

2005-11-29T05:35:00.000-08:00

This coming Sunday those churches that follow the lectionary will hear a reading from Isaiah 40. I can't read this passage without thinking of Handel's Messiah and, of course, Christmas. This passage also reminds us of what we used to call "the social gospel." This Advent season we are not just looking forward to Christmas morning and the goodies under the tree with our names written on the tags. We look forward to the salvation, the liberation, which God intends to bring to all God's people.

"He will feed his flock like a shepherd." We are used to applying the image of the shepherd to God. We especially remember the picture of Jesus as "The Good Shepherd." But the shepherd image was also applied to Kings in the Hebrew Scriptures, and God is depicted as the ideal and true king of Israel. Kings and governments have a responsibility to all the people they govern. Who is a shepherd to the people who are now exiled from their homes in New Orleans? How about all those who are left behind and left out of the affluence our economy generates for the few? Our government has a democratic form and we have no king, but the principle remains the same. This Advent season lets remember our responsibility as a government (and as the people of God) for those who suffer under the bondage of poverty.

Our Gay Agenda

2005-11-27T13:08:00.000-08:00

In my circle "gay agenda" is something we joke about. The adversaries of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) equality like to refer to the "gay agenda" in the way anti-semites used to refer to the "protocols of the elders of Zion." "Homosexuals" according to this mind-set have a nefarious plot, known as "the gay agenda" to drag down Christian civilization

What was on our gay agenda this Thanksgiving holiday weekend? My partner, Jim, and I spent Saturday painting & decorating an expected granddaughter's room. One of the two daughters that Jim & I raised together lives only a few miles away. She and our son-in-law are expecting a baby in April. We are looking forward to be grandfathers for the first time! Our "agenda" is no different than any other family--except maybe that we have a particular concern that all our family members will have the liberty to pursue happiness no matter what their sexual orientation or identity.

I attended church this morning. One of the readings for the day was from Isaiah 64. Israel is longing for God to appear, a God who, for the time-being, seems to be hidden. Aren't we in the same fix? Their are those of us in the United Methodist Church who are so certain of our own knowledge of God that we have no hesitation in telling a person he/she cannot be a member of the church because he or she is a "unrepentent homosexual." Don't get me wrong--I believe in the first baptismal vow that demands that we "renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness, reject the evil powers of this world and repent of your sin." There is a disagreement in the United Methodist Church over the question of whether homosexuality, in and of it self, is a sin. The United Methodists that I worship with in Madison do not consider the mutual devotion of Jim and I to be a sin--quite the contrary! The United Methodists I worship with view the loving relationships of LGBT persons to represent to be among the positive forces in our world--not "forces of wickedness."

Well, time to wrap this up. Jim and I are off to a dinner party this evening with our local Affirmation group, which includes other LGBT persons among whom are another long-term couple who went to Canada last year to be legally married. They call each other "husband," and they say it really does make a difference! We look forward to the day when we don't need to leave American soil in order to enjoy freedom.

More Vile

2005-11-24T12:35:00.000-08:00

John Wesley (1703-1791), Anglican Priest and Methodist Founder, peppered his prose with an abundance of biblical quotes and allusions. One interesting instance is Wesley's description of his decision to begin field preaching (Wesley's Journal April 2, 1739): "At four in the afternoon I submitted to 'be more vile,' and proclaimed in the highways the glad tidings of salvation. . . ." Wesley was alluding to II Samuel 6:22 where King David says (in the King James Version) "And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou has spoken of, of them shall I be had in honor."

Here David is speaking to his wife, Michal, who has just rebuked him for dancing before the Ark of the Covenant and exposing himself (David was apparently wearing little more than a ceremonial apron). Michal said (in the New Revised Standard Version), "How the king of Israel honored himself today, uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants' maids, as any vulgar fellow might shamelessly uncover himself!" To which David responded, "It was before the Lord, who chose me in place of your father and all his household, to appoint me as prince over Israel, the people of the Lord, that I have danced before the Lord. I will make myself yet more contemptible (i.e. "more vile") than this, and I will be abased in my own eyes; but the maids of whom you have spoken, by them I shall be held in honor."

Strange tale. For Wesley, Michal's attitude symbolized Wesley's own early attitude: "I could scarce reconcile myself at first to this strange way of preaching in the fields. . . . having been all my life (till very lately) so tenacious of every point relating to decency and order that I should have thought the saving of souls almost a sin if it had not been done in a church." Field-preaching was as contemptible as David's scanty dancing costume. Michal's apparent disparaging attitude towards the "servant's maids" may have resonated for Wesley with his own British society's ingrained classism. Wesley was not preaching to the "better sort of people" in the fields, coal pits and brickyards of 18th century Britain.

In the 21st century United States lesbian and gay people may be among those who are "vile and contemptible" in the eyes of some church people. The Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church has now given the green light to officially bar lesbian and gay persons from the church. One member of the council, the Rev. Keith Boyette, even suggests in his concurring opinion that pastors and congregations might put lesbian and gay persons who are already church members under official discipline. Break up your same-gender partnership of no-matter-how-many years. Become heterosexual or face forced chastity. Fail to "repent" of your "sin" of being gay or lesbian and you will face the threat of a church trial and removal of membership in the church.

I have named this blog "More Vile" in honor of Wesley's daring to defy the discriminatory attitudes of ruling elites of church and society. I dedicate this blog to the proposition that it is not a sin to be gay or lesbian and United Methodist. I will write in support of those who are working to change the discriminatory laws of the church, especially the Reconciling Ministries Network, Affirmation, the Methodist Federation for Social Action, United Methodists of Color for a More Inclusive Church, the Parents Reconciling Network, Methodist Students for an All-Inclusive Church and Soulforce.

With Soulforce I accuse the United Methodist Church of practicing spiritual violence by using its spiritual authority to demean lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. The United Methodist Church defines "homosexual practice" as "incompatible with Christian teaching." Based on this erroneous idea the United Methodists not only bars "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" from service to the church in the ordained ministry, but a recent decision the Judicial Council ("Supreme Court") of the United Methodist Church (Judicial Council Decision No. 1032) has given the denomination's blessing to an all-too common attitude amongst United Methodist clergy which defines "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" as "unrepentent sinners" who are deemed unable to take the vows of baptism and membership, and who may be subjected to disciplinary procedures including church trials leading to removal from membership in the church.

The spiritual violence of the church harms lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons in many ways. Anti-LGBT religious attitudes are used to justify countless laws used to harass and discriminate against LGBT persons in civil society. Perhaps the most egregious example of the harm which results from spiritual violence is the fact that LGBT youth are at greater risk than non-LGBT youth to commit suicide and that those who come from Christian families are at even greater risk because they must live with the disapproval of their families and congregations and are taught to believe they cannot please God and continue to live as LGBT. They may seek to obey their church's teachings and try to "change," and when they fail, they despair of ever pleasing God and their families, and turn to suicide for relief.

The United Methodist Church needs to follow the example of Wesley and change its attitudes about "decency and order." The church needs to "submit to be more vile and proclaim the glad tidings of salvation" to all persons. Following Wesley's first general rule of the the Methodist societies, the church must cease to do harm, in this case the harm of spiritual violence against LGBT persons.

Steve&LittleBits.jpg

2005-11-24T11:20:00.000-08:00

Steve&LittleBits.jpg
Originally uploaded by wesley17032003.

Steven and his favorite pet.

More Vile

Who Votes at General Conference?

Transgender Pastor Speaks for Himself

Institute on Religion and Democracy on Transgender Pastor

Transgender United Methodist Pastor Continued in Appointment

Still here!

The Theocons

Mary had a baby!

Same-Gender Marriage--a Heterosexual Invention?

General Conference Delegates

Republicans aren't gay bashers?

Yes, We Got Married

Here we are in Toronto!

Gay Pride brings on End Times!

Did I Misunderstand Bishop Whitaker?

Bishop Timothy Whitaker and Spiritual Violence

I'm Back from Colorado Springs!

Response to Bishop Whitaker from Miami Beach Pastor

Bishop Whitacker & "Culture"

In Colorado Springs

On the Road with Soulforce

Time for an Update

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

Minnesota Annual Conference Leads the Way to Equality

Oppressive "Christianity" in Nigeria, Africa

Wisconsin Methodists Support Gay Equality

More on Membership in the United Methodist Church

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

Soulforce relentlessly seeks equality for gay in the military

Theocracy or Justice?

Remembering an African Lesbian Activist

Episcopal Bishop Chane on Nigeria

Nigerian Oppression of Gay Persons

Recent Comments on Soulforce

Soulforce's Equality Ride

The Christian Century: Mark Noll on Slavery & Scripture

Wedding Plans Move Ahead

From an Unrepentant Homosexual Awaiting Trial

"You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose . . ."

Judicial Council Reconsiders

A Granddaughter is born - and she blogs!

"Misquoting Jesus"

"Gospel of Intolerance"

"Claiming the Promises"

"When I fall down on my knees. . .

Evangelicals: Green or not Green?

Will 1032 lead to schism?

The year of Mark

Bishop Charlene Kammerer seeks Reconsideration of #1032

Letter from Bishop Linda Lee on Judicial Council Decision 1032

The Lord will raise up a prophet . . . .

School of the Americas Watch

Mainstream Media on Egg Roll "Controversy"

Now after John was arrested . . .

White House comment on the Egg Roll

Making a Mountain out of an Egg Roll

IRD Trashes An Easter for all families

"O Lord, you have searched me and known me."

Jimmy Carter's New Book

Wisdom of the Middle Way

Reaffirming our Baptism

Brokeback Mountain

The Baptism of the Lord

Imperial Presidency Alert

Time to get married?

Celebrating a New Year and a Birthday!

Looking to the Redemption of Jerusalem

Nativity of our Lord - Revised Version

I receive my first comment!

The Fourth Sunday in Advent

Rooted in God

Text of Rocky Mountain Conference Clergy Statement

Hooray for Rocky Mountain Conference Clergy

Growing Effort to Overturn Judicial Council Decision 1032

Expanding Right-Wing Universe

Website Aims to Overturn Judicial Council Decision 1032

"Clear the Road!"

More on Roman Catholic Discrimination against Gay Priests

Latest News on Decision 1032

Pope Promotes Heterosexism