Dedicated Reconciling United Methodists are presenting its annual Fall Potluck and Program on Sunday, November 12. The dinner is at 6:00. Please bring a dish to pass.
The program and Worship is at 7:00. The speaker will be Rev. George Covintree with a message about "Peace and Justice People."
The program will be at Nardin Park United Methodist Church, which is at 29887 W. 11 Mile Road in Farmington Hills. That is west of Middlebelt. Park near the southwest corner.
Questions? You may contact:
George Jonte-Crane at geopau226 at yahoo dot com
Karen Roth at karensmiles18 at hotmail dot com
D.R.U.M exists to enable full participation of people of all sexual orientations and gender identities in the life of the United Methodist Church, both in policy and practice. We seek to educate, advocate, organize, and support.
The program is co-sponsored by the Church and Society Committee of Nardin Park UMC.
Please join us!
Sunday, November 5, 2017
Thursday, October 5, 2017
A Way Forward third solution
The Way Forward Commission of the United Methodist Church is to propose a list of revisions to the *Book of Discipline*, the denomination’s governing document. They are to do this by next summer. Whatever they propose is supposed to get us all beyond the LGBTQ issues. Schism? A way to stay together? Include LGBTQ people? Exclude? Make the decision local?
They’re not saying right now. And they’ve been pretty good about not saying – though LGBTQ advocates are miffed at being barred from commission meetings.
And while the commission is silent, both conservative and progressive voices are trying to sway debate, at least across the denomination, though perhaps not in the commission. On the conservative side is the Wesleyan Covenant Association. Their position comes down to: do it our way or we split. And their way is complete exclusion of LGBTQ people.
On the other side are the LGBTQ advocate organizations, such as Reconciling Ministries Network and Queer Clergy Caucus. They demand full inclusion of LGBTQ people, to end the harm, the spiritual violence, the church is perpetrating.
Rev. Jeremy Smith and his blog Hacking Christanity struggles with a third proposal, put out by the Uniting Methodists Movement. Their goal is to prevent schism, that we remain a united denomination even if we disagree. A couple of their positions: Clergy are neither compelled to nor prohibited from officiating at same-sex weddings. Local regions are neither compelled to nor prohibited from ordaining LGBTQ persons. This proposal is a local option, meaning each region or congregation decides whether to be inclusive or exclusive.
Reconciling Ministries Network’s response is that LGBTQ people will continue to be harmed. That leads to Smith proposing a few questions, a couple of which are:
* Can LGBTQ people support this proposal without participating in their own oppression?
* Does this proposal fragment the alliance between LGBTQ people and allies?
Smith turns to the story of Jonah from the Bible. God tells Jonah to preach in Nineveh, a city in Assyria. These people have a reputation for telling others be conquered or die. Jonah flees in the other direction and there is the thing about being swallowed by a whale. Once the whale spits Jonah back on land he does go to Nineveh – and in seven words convinces the city to repent and be saved. But Jonah sits under a fig tree and grumbles.
Why that ending? Didn’t Jonah do what God wanted? Shouldn’t he be happy?
Smith quotes Rob Bell’s book, *What Is The Bible?* This sounds a lot like my frequently repeated discussion of ranking in my other blog.
Smith says the same sentiment is strong in the United Methodist Church.
Is God doing a new thing? Will we see it if He does?
Several commenters don’t like Smith’s comparison. They say a key point of the story is that Nineveh repented. They haven’t seen the conservatives in the denomination do that. From personal experience I learned forgiveness can’t depend on repentance.
After describing his struggles with the local option Smith says he prefers it. Yes, some LGBTQ people will still be harmed. But incremental movement is better than no movement. Some people aren’t ready for the big step. Going from full exclusion to full inclusion takes a period of struggle, where nobody is pleased. And for Smith unity in diversity remains a top goal.
They’re not saying right now. And they’ve been pretty good about not saying – though LGBTQ advocates are miffed at being barred from commission meetings.
And while the commission is silent, both conservative and progressive voices are trying to sway debate, at least across the denomination, though perhaps not in the commission. On the conservative side is the Wesleyan Covenant Association. Their position comes down to: do it our way or we split. And their way is complete exclusion of LGBTQ people.
On the other side are the LGBTQ advocate organizations, such as Reconciling Ministries Network and Queer Clergy Caucus. They demand full inclusion of LGBTQ people, to end the harm, the spiritual violence, the church is perpetrating.
Rev. Jeremy Smith and his blog Hacking Christanity struggles with a third proposal, put out by the Uniting Methodists Movement. Their goal is to prevent schism, that we remain a united denomination even if we disagree. A couple of their positions: Clergy are neither compelled to nor prohibited from officiating at same-sex weddings. Local regions are neither compelled to nor prohibited from ordaining LGBTQ persons. This proposal is a local option, meaning each region or congregation decides whether to be inclusive or exclusive.
Reconciling Ministries Network’s response is that LGBTQ people will continue to be harmed. That leads to Smith proposing a few questions, a couple of which are:
* Can LGBTQ people support this proposal without participating in their own oppression?
* Does this proposal fragment the alliance between LGBTQ people and allies?
Smith turns to the story of Jonah from the Bible. God tells Jonah to preach in Nineveh, a city in Assyria. These people have a reputation for telling others be conquered or die. Jonah flees in the other direction and there is the thing about being swallowed by a whale. Once the whale spits Jonah back on land he does go to Nineveh – and in seven words convinces the city to repent and be saved. But Jonah sits under a fig tree and grumbles.
Why that ending? Didn’t Jonah do what God wanted? Shouldn’t he be happy?
Smith quotes Rob Bell’s book, *What Is The Bible?* This sounds a lot like my frequently repeated discussion of ranking in my other blog.
The story demands non-dual awareness: many see the world in dualistic terms where there are good people and bad people, sinners and saints, us and them, a world in which people stay true to the labels and categories we’ve placed them in.So, if God does something new will the people accept it? The reason for the strange ending of the Jonah story is because Jonah would rather die than accept this inclusive community.
This story wants none of that. It blasts to pieces our biases and labels with the declaration “God is on everyone’s side,” extending grace and compassion to everyone, especially those we have most strongly decided are not on God’s side.
Smith says the same sentiment is strong in the United Methodist Church.
Is God doing a new thing? Will we see it if He does?
Several commenters don’t like Smith’s comparison. They say a key point of the story is that Nineveh repented. They haven’t seen the conservatives in the denomination do that. From personal experience I learned forgiveness can’t depend on repentance.
After describing his struggles with the local option Smith says he prefers it. Yes, some LGBTQ people will still be harmed. But incremental movement is better than no movement. Some people aren’t ready for the big step. Going from full exclusion to full inclusion takes a period of struggle, where nobody is pleased. And for Smith unity in diversity remains a top goal.
Monday, September 4, 2017
Reducing hate as a measure of church health
Pastor Jeremy Smith of the blog Hacking Christianity does a bit of data crunching and comes up with a proposal related to the question of how do we define whether a church is healthy? Smith confines his discussion to the United Methodist Church.
First the data crunching. Smith compares the number of hate groups in proportion to population in each state and notes which jurisdiction (region, there are five across America) that state is in. Yes, the highest percentage of hate groups is in the Southeast Jurisdiction.
Smith carefully says correlation is not causation. We cannot tell if church attendance (in a conservative region) inspires hate groups or whether hate groups encourage church attendance.
Instead, Smith asks different questions: Should churches be doing more to combat organized hate in their communities? Should they engage groups in their own backyard? Will it make a difference?
Smith uses the example of Daryl Davis, a black musician who has been in the news lately. When Davis encounters a Klansman he tries to get to know them and for them to know him. Over the years 200 of his new friends have left the Klan, many times giving Davis their robe.
Smith takes this one more step. He reminds us we value what we count. At the moment United Methodist churches must report dollars in the offering plate, attendance (“nickels and noses” as a commenter puts it), number of people involved in mission projects, and other similar numbers. But those numbers do not include engagement with hate groups. Perhaps the denomination should ask churches to report hate group contact hours (5 people as counter protesters at a rally for 2 hours is 10 contact hours).
Some of the comments are insightful. Others dismiss Smith because he got his data on hate groups from the Southern Poverty Law Center. I’ve responded to those who think the SPLC is corrupt and useless. Then as now a group that doesn’t want to be seen as a hate group will try to discredit any organization that says they are.
First the data crunching. Smith compares the number of hate groups in proportion to population in each state and notes which jurisdiction (region, there are five across America) that state is in. Yes, the highest percentage of hate groups is in the Southeast Jurisdiction.
Smith carefully says correlation is not causation. We cannot tell if church attendance (in a conservative region) inspires hate groups or whether hate groups encourage church attendance.
Instead, Smith asks different questions: Should churches be doing more to combat organized hate in their communities? Should they engage groups in their own backyard? Will it make a difference?
Smith uses the example of Daryl Davis, a black musician who has been in the news lately. When Davis encounters a Klansman he tries to get to know them and for them to know him. Over the years 200 of his new friends have left the Klan, many times giving Davis their robe.
Smith takes this one more step. He reminds us we value what we count. At the moment United Methodist churches must report dollars in the offering plate, attendance (“nickels and noses” as a commenter puts it), number of people involved in mission projects, and other similar numbers. But those numbers do not include engagement with hate groups. Perhaps the denomination should ask churches to report hate group contact hours (5 people as counter protesters at a rally for 2 hours is 10 contact hours).
Some of the comments are insightful. Others dismiss Smith because he got his data on hate groups from the Southern Poverty Law Center. I’ve responded to those who think the SPLC is corrupt and useless. Then as now a group that doesn’t want to be seen as a hate group will try to discredit any organization that says they are.
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
Clergy Covenant as the Way Forward
At the beginning of the month I wrote a post about Clergy Covenant. I’m not surprised that only 19 times readers have followed the link to it. There may be a couple dozen more reads from people going to the front page of this blog. That’s normal for this blog, which may get a few hundred eyeballs a month.
When I post a discussion or newsy item (rather than an invitation to an event) to this blog I usually put a notice on my main blog and provide a link to the article on this blog. I’m puzzled and amused that the notice has been seen 274 times and yet the link is rarely followed.
The earlier post on this blog summarized thoughts from Rev. Jeremy Smith, a United Methodist Clergyperson, who writes the blog Hacking Christianity. Since then Smith has been monitoring the online discussion #NextMethodism. Most of the discussion appears to be from conservatives trying to influence what the Commission on the Way Forward will come up with. Short answer: These conservatives want a system they control. They’re urging the abolishment of the current system so their ideal can be built in its place. When Smith participates in the discussion responders don’t say anything about his ideas, they only disparage him. That’s a sign to me they only want control.
Even so, Smith offers his own ideas for a way forward. And all of them have to do with the Clergy Covenant. They are:
1. The covenant needs to be more local. It is hard to be in covenant with someone across the country or across the world. If you aren’t in covenant – if you don’t actively care for a fellow pastor and allow him to care for you – then you have no basis for filing a complaint. Says Smith:
2. The covenant needs to be more direct. From Matthew 18:
3. The covenant is a practice. It is active. We say we are a connectional church, with connections across the region, state, country, and world. But when pastors don’t practice a covenant with their colleagues they don’t value the connection.
When I post a discussion or newsy item (rather than an invitation to an event) to this blog I usually put a notice on my main blog and provide a link to the article on this blog. I’m puzzled and amused that the notice has been seen 274 times and yet the link is rarely followed.
The earlier post on this blog summarized thoughts from Rev. Jeremy Smith, a United Methodist Clergyperson, who writes the blog Hacking Christianity. Since then Smith has been monitoring the online discussion #NextMethodism. Most of the discussion appears to be from conservatives trying to influence what the Commission on the Way Forward will come up with. Short answer: These conservatives want a system they control. They’re urging the abolishment of the current system so their ideal can be built in its place. When Smith participates in the discussion responders don’t say anything about his ideas, they only disparage him. That’s a sign to me they only want control.
Even so, Smith offers his own ideas for a way forward. And all of them have to do with the Clergy Covenant. They are:
1. The covenant needs to be more local. It is hard to be in covenant with someone across the country or across the world. If you aren’t in covenant – if you don’t actively care for a fellow pastor and allow him to care for you – then you have no basis for filing a complaint. Says Smith:
Complaints are accepted by peers or laity in their annual conference, trials are by one’s conference, appointments are by one’s conference, and status changes are voted on by one’s conference.
2. The covenant needs to be more direct. From Matthew 18:
If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone.Have a complaint against a fellow pastor? Talk to them. Directly. None of this stuff about letters sent to the bishop (though there must be exceptions for such things as assault). This indirect stuff is a sign of no covenant.
3. The covenant is a practice. It is active. We say we are a connectional church, with connections across the region, state, country, and world. But when pastors don’t practice a covenant with their colleagues they don’t value the connection.
Tuesday, July 4, 2017
Taking Clergy Covenant seriously
I’ve been reading occasional posts by Jeremy, who writes the blog Hacking Christianity. He frequently writes about the United Methodist Church and the issues around the gay travails the denomination is going through, particularly the last couple years. His recent post takes a look at the Clergy Covenant.
When a pastor allegedly violates one of the homosexual restrictions of the denomination’s Book of Discipline and is brought up on charges, one of the charges us usually that the pastor violated the Clergy Covenant.
Jeremy asks is the only time you’re worried about the Clergy Covenant is when you can wield it against someone else? Or do you actually try to get to know your fellow pastors, especially those from tiny churches or those of other races or those who are more progressive or conservative? Do you actually care for and care about these other pastors? Do you pay attention to what they say? Do you support each other?
If you don’t you’re not really practicing Clergy Covenant. You’re only wielding the term as a weapon.
In another post Jeremy compares the public park with the country club. The park has features that draw people in – the playground, the sports grass, the picnic tables, the fountain. Keep these features strong and people will come.
In contrast the country club has limited membership (usually expensive) and fences.
What kind of church are you? Are you defined by what draws others in or are you defined by what divides and separates?
When a pastor allegedly violates one of the homosexual restrictions of the denomination’s Book of Discipline and is brought up on charges, one of the charges us usually that the pastor violated the Clergy Covenant.
Jeremy asks is the only time you’re worried about the Clergy Covenant is when you can wield it against someone else? Or do you actually try to get to know your fellow pastors, especially those from tiny churches or those of other races or those who are more progressive or conservative? Do you actually care for and care about these other pastors? Do you pay attention to what they say? Do you support each other?
If you don’t you’re not really practicing Clergy Covenant. You’re only wielding the term as a weapon.
In another post Jeremy compares the public park with the country club. The park has features that draw people in – the playground, the sports grass, the picnic tables, the fountain. Keep these features strong and people will come.
In contrast the country club has limited membership (usually expensive) and fences.
What kind of church are you? Are you defined by what draws others in or are you defined by what divides and separates?
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Judicial Council rules against lesbian bishop
A few days ago I wrote about the case before the United Methodist Judicial Council about bishop Karen Oliveto, who is in a same-sex marriage. On Friday the JC issued its ruling.
It isn’t good.
The ruling says that consecrating a lesbian bishop violated church law and those who did the consecrating were in violation of their “commitment to abide by and uphold the church’s definition of marriage and stance on homosexuality.”
As part of its ruling the JC rejected arguments made by Richard Marsh, the counsel for Oliveto. He had argued that a marriage license does not imply a “practicing” homosexual, which is defined as genital sex. The JC blasted that argument. A marriage license does indeed mean “practicing.”
For the moment Oliveto remains “in good standing.” The ruling does not automatically remove her as bishop or force her into retirement.
From what I have figured out, this ruling means it is appropriate and legal to have a complaint filed against Oliveto. If nobody in the Western Jurisdiction does, the president or secretary of the WJ college of bishops must. The complaint would be that she violated denomination law, with the possibility of facing a church trial.
But, lately, bishops have been reluctant to hold trials, even reluctant to hand out punishment for violating church laws on homosexuality.
So the WJ faces a dilemma. The JC has clearly said that a lesbian bishop is Not Good. A lesbian bishop is also pretty high profile. It is one thing to get a complaint about a local gay pastor and the local bishop saying, “We’ve analyzed the evidence and concluded there need not be any trial, removal, or punishment.” It is quite another to say that about a lesbian bishop.
Even so, Rob Renfroe, president of Good News, an organization pushing the denomination in a conservative direction, said, “We don’t have any hope — because of its past track record — that the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops will address this either swiftly or with integrity.”
Both sides agree that the ruling shows the denomination is broken and that the work of the Commission on a Way Forward becomes all the more important. This commission is searching for a way to keep the denomination together. Their eventual plan is to be voted on in February 2019.
Another part of the ruling is that it is appropriate and legal to file a complaint against the bishops who performed the consecration service for Oliveto. Apparently, they should have known better and rejected Oliveto. I think it also means the Jurisdiction delegates who voted for her are not to be charged. But will these bishops be charged? All of them? The jurisdiction president?
I found the full text of the JC ruling here. In it I learned that being in a same-sex marriage while being a bishop is not considered immoral. However, by church law, it is illegal. This strikes down the argument that the immorality makes it illegal. It is illegal because the Book of Discipline says it is illegal.
In other cases heard last week two are important to us. First, regions in New York and Illinois had adopted policies saying they would not ask if a candidate to be a pastor was lesbian or gay and would ignore such declarations from the candidates. The ruling from the JC is that those who evaluate candidates must to a “thorough” job. It seems not discovering if a candidate is lesbian or gay means the evaluation wasn’t thorough.
In the second case the Northeastern Jurisdiction passed a resolution calling for its college of bishops to “Stop the Trials,” to no longer hold church trials for pastors accused of being gay or lesbian or accused of officiating at same-sex weddings. But the JC said a jurisdiction cannot pass a resolutions that “encourage a violation of church law or discourage the enforcement of church law.”
It isn’t good.
The ruling says that consecrating a lesbian bishop violated church law and those who did the consecrating were in violation of their “commitment to abide by and uphold the church’s definition of marriage and stance on homosexuality.”
As part of its ruling the JC rejected arguments made by Richard Marsh, the counsel for Oliveto. He had argued that a marriage license does not imply a “practicing” homosexual, which is defined as genital sex. The JC blasted that argument. A marriage license does indeed mean “practicing.”
For the moment Oliveto remains “in good standing.” The ruling does not automatically remove her as bishop or force her into retirement.
From what I have figured out, this ruling means it is appropriate and legal to have a complaint filed against Oliveto. If nobody in the Western Jurisdiction does, the president or secretary of the WJ college of bishops must. The complaint would be that she violated denomination law, with the possibility of facing a church trial.
But, lately, bishops have been reluctant to hold trials, even reluctant to hand out punishment for violating church laws on homosexuality.
So the WJ faces a dilemma. The JC has clearly said that a lesbian bishop is Not Good. A lesbian bishop is also pretty high profile. It is one thing to get a complaint about a local gay pastor and the local bishop saying, “We’ve analyzed the evidence and concluded there need not be any trial, removal, or punishment.” It is quite another to say that about a lesbian bishop.
Even so, Rob Renfroe, president of Good News, an organization pushing the denomination in a conservative direction, said, “We don’t have any hope — because of its past track record — that the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops will address this either swiftly or with integrity.”
Both sides agree that the ruling shows the denomination is broken and that the work of the Commission on a Way Forward becomes all the more important. This commission is searching for a way to keep the denomination together. Their eventual plan is to be voted on in February 2019.
Another part of the ruling is that it is appropriate and legal to file a complaint against the bishops who performed the consecration service for Oliveto. Apparently, they should have known better and rejected Oliveto. I think it also means the Jurisdiction delegates who voted for her are not to be charged. But will these bishops be charged? All of them? The jurisdiction president?
I found the full text of the JC ruling here. In it I learned that being in a same-sex marriage while being a bishop is not considered immoral. However, by church law, it is illegal. This strikes down the argument that the immorality makes it illegal. It is illegal because the Book of Discipline says it is illegal.
In other cases heard last week two are important to us. First, regions in New York and Illinois had adopted policies saying they would not ask if a candidate to be a pastor was lesbian or gay and would ignore such declarations from the candidates. The ruling from the JC is that those who evaluate candidates must to a “thorough” job. It seems not discovering if a candidate is lesbian or gay means the evaluation wasn’t thorough.
In the second case the Northeastern Jurisdiction passed a resolution calling for its college of bishops to “Stop the Trials,” to no longer hold church trials for pastors accused of being gay or lesbian or accused of officiating at same-sex weddings. But the JC said a jurisdiction cannot pass a resolutions that “encourage a violation of church law or discourage the enforcement of church law.”
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
Judicial Council considers challenge to lesbian bishop
Karen Oliveto is a pastor in the United Methodist Church and, in seeming conflict with the denomination’s lawbook the Book of Discipline, is married to a woman. United Methodists in San Francisco and in much of the Western Jurisdiction (WJ, the region essentially Colorado and west) don’t worry about such things. So, last summer Oliveto was elected to be a bishop. She was assigned to be the guiding leadership of the churches in Colorado, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, and a bit of Idaho.
Given that the United Methodist Church could not agree on what to do with LGBT people and disagreed so thoroughly they almost blew up last spring’s legislative General Conference it was expected that Oliveto’s election as bishop would be challenged. And it was, by Dixie Brewster, a delegate to the South Central Jurisdiction (SJC, New Mexico to Arkansas, Nebraska to Texas). The SJC approved Brewster’s petition.
Brewster’s petition is now before the Judicial Council (JC), the equivalent of the denomination’s supreme court. Brewster claims that in making Oliveto a bishop the WJ’s actions “negate, ignore, and violate” provisions of the Book of Discipline.
Oral arguments were heard yesterday. The JC may not issue its ruling until the end of its session at the end of the week.
This isn’t the only LGBT issue before the JC. Two petitions, from New York and northern Illinois, ask whether the boards that approve candidates to be pastors are required to ask those candidates if they are a “self-avowed practicing homosexual,” which would disqualify the candidate from being a pastor in the denomination. Several regions are defying the Book of Discipline and its ban on lesbian and gay pastors by refusing to ask this question.
The rest of this post is about the Oliveto case and is going to get technical, summarizing the arguments of both sides. This may mean little to those outside the denomination. Most members, those sitting in the pews, won’t care either, though many will care whether a lesbian bishop is affirmed or thrown out and what that says about the prospect of the denomination as a whole, whether or not it will be split over the issue. Meaning they won’t care until their local church is affected.
So, if you’re still reading, into the weeds we tread.
The legal brief for Brewster were written by Rev. Keith Boyette, a conservative who has previously called for denomination schism. The WJ brief was presented by Richard Marsh. Links to the original briefs are in a sidebar to a news article from the United Methodist News Service. I read Marsh’s oral arguments on the blog Hacking Christianity.
Boyette says the JC has jurisdiction to hear the case because the Book of Discipline says the JC can rule over any matter within it or on any matter from the General Conference.
Marsh disagrees. He goes back to when the denomination was reformed in 1939 after being split by slavery. The union documents divide up the country into jurisdictions (such as Western, and South Central) and bishops are to be elected by jurisdictions. This prevents delegates from the North from electing all bishops and imposing their views on Southern congregations. That system is still in place. No one, including the General Conference and the JC, can pass laws or challenge who a jurisdiction elects as bishop.
Boyette says that a jurisdiction cannot violate the Book of Discipline and its rules saying a “self-avowed practicing homosexual” cannot be a pastor (only pastors can be promoted to bishop). A marriage certificate is a public record of being both self-avowed and practicing.
Marsh says the Book of Discipline was not violated. Oliveto is a pastor in good standing. The standard for “practicing” is genital sex. Marriage does not equate to genital sex. Marriages can exist without it.
A few years ago a lesbian pastor in Wisconsin was put on trial for being “practicing” as well as officiating at a same-sex wedding. The “practicing” part of the charges had to be dropped because she refused to answer the question of whether she had genital sex with her partner. That’s personal, she said. You don’t ask straight pastors that question.
Boyette does not ask about genital sex, saying that a marriage certificate is proof of it.
Boyette says the Book of Discipline supports heterosexual marriage and thus outlaws same-sex marriage.
Marsh agrees straight marriage is indeed blessed. But the wording is such that same-sex marriage is not outlawed. In addition, the Book of Discipline calls the denomination to support equal rights regardless of sexual orientation and the American legal system has declared that marriage is one of those rights. Furthermore, while officiating at a same-sex wedding is listed as a chargeable offense, being in a same-sex marriage is not.
Finally, all this is playing out while a Commission on a Way Forward tries to figure out whether the denomination can be kept together and how to make that happen. Boyette argues that violations of the Book of Discipline should not be put on hold while we wait for the Commission to do its work. Marsh notes that one solution is for a looser denomination, where each region or perhaps each congregation decides for itself how to treat LGBT people. Marsh says the JC should not make the Commission’s work harder by creating new standards for who can be a bishop or by expanding the definition of “practicing.”
The case is now in the hands of the JC.
Given that the United Methodist Church could not agree on what to do with LGBT people and disagreed so thoroughly they almost blew up last spring’s legislative General Conference it was expected that Oliveto’s election as bishop would be challenged. And it was, by Dixie Brewster, a delegate to the South Central Jurisdiction (SJC, New Mexico to Arkansas, Nebraska to Texas). The SJC approved Brewster’s petition.
Brewster’s petition is now before the Judicial Council (JC), the equivalent of the denomination’s supreme court. Brewster claims that in making Oliveto a bishop the WJ’s actions “negate, ignore, and violate” provisions of the Book of Discipline.
Oral arguments were heard yesterday. The JC may not issue its ruling until the end of its session at the end of the week.
This isn’t the only LGBT issue before the JC. Two petitions, from New York and northern Illinois, ask whether the boards that approve candidates to be pastors are required to ask those candidates if they are a “self-avowed practicing homosexual,” which would disqualify the candidate from being a pastor in the denomination. Several regions are defying the Book of Discipline and its ban on lesbian and gay pastors by refusing to ask this question.
The rest of this post is about the Oliveto case and is going to get technical, summarizing the arguments of both sides. This may mean little to those outside the denomination. Most members, those sitting in the pews, won’t care either, though many will care whether a lesbian bishop is affirmed or thrown out and what that says about the prospect of the denomination as a whole, whether or not it will be split over the issue. Meaning they won’t care until their local church is affected.
So, if you’re still reading, into the weeds we tread.
The legal brief for Brewster were written by Rev. Keith Boyette, a conservative who has previously called for denomination schism. The WJ brief was presented by Richard Marsh. Links to the original briefs are in a sidebar to a news article from the United Methodist News Service. I read Marsh’s oral arguments on the blog Hacking Christianity.
Boyette says the JC has jurisdiction to hear the case because the Book of Discipline says the JC can rule over any matter within it or on any matter from the General Conference.
Marsh disagrees. He goes back to when the denomination was reformed in 1939 after being split by slavery. The union documents divide up the country into jurisdictions (such as Western, and South Central) and bishops are to be elected by jurisdictions. This prevents delegates from the North from electing all bishops and imposing their views on Southern congregations. That system is still in place. No one, including the General Conference and the JC, can pass laws or challenge who a jurisdiction elects as bishop.
Boyette says that a jurisdiction cannot violate the Book of Discipline and its rules saying a “self-avowed practicing homosexual” cannot be a pastor (only pastors can be promoted to bishop). A marriage certificate is a public record of being both self-avowed and practicing.
Marsh says the Book of Discipline was not violated. Oliveto is a pastor in good standing. The standard for “practicing” is genital sex. Marriage does not equate to genital sex. Marriages can exist without it.
A few years ago a lesbian pastor in Wisconsin was put on trial for being “practicing” as well as officiating at a same-sex wedding. The “practicing” part of the charges had to be dropped because she refused to answer the question of whether she had genital sex with her partner. That’s personal, she said. You don’t ask straight pastors that question.
Boyette does not ask about genital sex, saying that a marriage certificate is proof of it.
Boyette says the Book of Discipline supports heterosexual marriage and thus outlaws same-sex marriage.
Marsh agrees straight marriage is indeed blessed. But the wording is such that same-sex marriage is not outlawed. In addition, the Book of Discipline calls the denomination to support equal rights regardless of sexual orientation and the American legal system has declared that marriage is one of those rights. Furthermore, while officiating at a same-sex wedding is listed as a chargeable offense, being in a same-sex marriage is not.
Finally, all this is playing out while a Commission on a Way Forward tries to figure out whether the denomination can be kept together and how to make that happen. Boyette argues that violations of the Book of Discipline should not be put on hold while we wait for the Commission to do its work. Marsh notes that one solution is for a looser denomination, where each region or perhaps each congregation decides for itself how to treat LGBT people. Marsh says the JC should not make the Commission’s work harder by creating new standards for who can be a bishop or by expanding the definition of “practicing.”
The case is now in the hands of the JC.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Ruth Ellis Center Fundraiser, May 7
The Ruth Ellis Center is a social services agency with a mission “to provide short-term and long-term residential safe space and support services for runaway, homeless, and at-risk lesbian, gay, bi-attractional, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) youth.” As LGBTQ youth continue to be disproportionately affected by homelessness, the Ruth Ellis Center remains dedicated to ensuring that these vulnerable youth and young adults receive the services and inherent protections available to all citizens. No youth is turned away or denied services. Ruth Ellis Center, founded in 1999, is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization.
You’re invited to a fundraiser for the Ruth Ellis Center on Sunday, May 7 at 7:00 pm in the Chapel at Nardin Park United Methodist Church in Farmington Hills. Jerry Peterson, Executive Director of Ruth Ellis Center, will speak about the diverse programs offered to young people and the newer programs for their families. Desserts will be served following the presentation. There will be giving envelopes so you can write your check that evening or send it in later.
Nardin Park UMC is at 29887 W. 11 Mile Road in Farmington Hills. Note: Construction completely blocks 11 Mile east of Orchard Lake Road. Approaching from Middlebelt Road, the sign on the barricade declares “Road Open to Nardin Park Church.” Park near the southwest corner, by the rainbow balloons. Call the church office with questions, 248-476-8860, 8:30-4:30 M-F.
You’re invited to a fundraiser for the Ruth Ellis Center on Sunday, May 7 at 7:00 pm in the Chapel at Nardin Park United Methodist Church in Farmington Hills. Jerry Peterson, Executive Director of Ruth Ellis Center, will speak about the diverse programs offered to young people and the newer programs for their families. Desserts will be served following the presentation. There will be giving envelopes so you can write your check that evening or send it in later.
Nardin Park UMC is at 29887 W. 11 Mile Road in Farmington Hills. Note: Construction completely blocks 11 Mile east of Orchard Lake Road. Approaching from Middlebelt Road, the sign on the barricade declares “Road Open to Nardin Park Church.” Park near the southwest corner, by the rainbow balloons. Call the church office with questions, 248-476-8860, 8:30-4:30 M-F.
Thursday, February 9, 2017
An Act of Love, February 12
You are invited to see the film “An Act of Love” on Sunday, February 12 at 5:00 at Nardin Park UMC, 29887 W. Eleven Mile, Farmington Hills. This is just west of Middlebelt.
This free event features the award-winning documentary “An Act of Love,” copies of which were given to delegates to General Conference last summer. The 90-minute film explores the deep divisions in the United Methodist Church over same-sex marriage and the ordination of gay and lesbian clergy. The film centers on an unlikely advocate for LGBTQ inclusion, Rev. Frank Schaefer, who was put on trial by the Church for officiating his son’s same-sex wedding. Their story is presented within the context of the larger debate and includes voices from all sides.
A discussion, led by Pastors Melanie Carey and Wes Brun, will follow the film. Pizza, popcorn and beverages will be provided.
Childcare will be provided with reservation through Nardin Park’s office, M-F 8:30-4:30, 248-476-8860.
Upcoming programs:
Sunday, May 7 – Learn about the Ruth Ellis Center’s valuable, growing services from Jerry Peterson, Executive Director, and our opportunities for both service and financial support.
Questions? You may contact Karen Roth at karensmiles18 at hotmail dot com
This free event features the award-winning documentary “An Act of Love,” copies of which were given to delegates to General Conference last summer. The 90-minute film explores the deep divisions in the United Methodist Church over same-sex marriage and the ordination of gay and lesbian clergy. The film centers on an unlikely advocate for LGBTQ inclusion, Rev. Frank Schaefer, who was put on trial by the Church for officiating his son’s same-sex wedding. Their story is presented within the context of the larger debate and includes voices from all sides.
A discussion, led by Pastors Melanie Carey and Wes Brun, will follow the film. Pizza, popcorn and beverages will be provided.
Childcare will be provided with reservation through Nardin Park’s office, M-F 8:30-4:30, 248-476-8860.
Upcoming programs:
Sunday, May 7 – Learn about the Ruth Ellis Center’s valuable, growing services from Jerry Peterson, Executive Director, and our opportunities for both service and financial support.
Questions? You may contact Karen Roth at karensmiles18 at hotmail dot com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)