Rev. Jeremy Smith has been explaining what is happening in the United Methodist Church as we approach the crucially important General Conference about 70 days from now. I’ve written about some of his previous posts to his blog Hacking Christianity.
The conflict is around the Wesleyan Covenant Association and their stance that the only acceptable plan to come out of GC is the Traditionalist Plan which keeps all the current LGBT restrictions and adds to them. Smith lays out the WCA strategy.
The WCA claims a membership of 125,000 and 1,500 churches. The combined value of these church properties is about $230 million. Their apportionment – the share a local church is to contribute to the global denomination – is $4 million a year, though about 10% is withheld because of local disagreements with the denomination (such as being too lenient towards LGBT people). If the Traditional Plan is not approved expect more WCA churches to withhold their portion.
The existence of the WCA means a local church has a place to go if it wants to pull out of the denomination. Leaving has become a possibility. Will moderate delegates be willing to see that $4 million walk out the door? Is the delegate’s gay nephew really worth that much?
The prize in this conflict is the assets of the denomination – those things beyond the local congregations. And there are a lot of assets – hospitals, colleges, offices (such as the United Methodist Building just steps away from the Capitol and Supreme Court), conference centers, retreats, camps, and the wealth of the United Methodist Foundation (used to help churches expand and repair their buildings). The goal of the WCA is to be the ones holding on to these assets when the dust settles. That dust will be stirred up because the WCA intends to make the denomination so intolerable to progressives and moderates that we leave.
The WCA is saying: Do it our way or we leave – and we take a lot of money with us. If you let us do it our way we’re going to make things so intolerable that you will leave – and we get to keep all those wonderful assets.
Sunday, December 16, 2018
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Judicial Council says part of the Traditional Plan is unconstitutional
The United Methodist Judicial Council, the denomination’s high court, looked at the three plans for the denomination’s future to be voted on at the General Conference in February. The Council of Bishops asked the Judicial Council to decide on the constitutionality of the three proposals well before the plans are voted on. This is according to the denomination’s constitution.
The complicated Connectional Conference Plan proposes several changes to the denomination’s constitution. Because of that the Judicial Council ruled it had no authority to scrutinize the plan.
The Council unanimously decided there are a few problems with the One Church Plan, the one to allow each Annual Conference (region) to decide whether to ordain LGBT people or to permit same-sex marriages. The Traditional Plan, the one to tighten restrictions against LGBT people, has several significant problems.
Since I don’t want to wade through the 87 page decision, I turn to Rev. Jeremy Smith and his blog Hacking Christianity. He had a post about the decision ready the day after it was released.
Of the many pieces in the One Church Plan, only three sentences were declared unconstitutional, and in Smith’s opinion are irrelevant to the overall plan of “unity in diversity.”
The Traditionalist Plan is made up of 17 petitions (perhaps described a components). Nine of those were declared unconstitutional. The major points, according to Smith:
* The Council of Bishops was not designed to have its members policing each other for doctrinal purity.
* A Board of Ordained Ministry (the committee in each region that decides who may be a pastor) cannot reduce its decision to one aspect of a candidate (whether they are LGBT) and cannot single out one group of candidates for disqualification.
* The plan allows for Annual Conferences and individual churches to leave the denomination if they don’t like the LGBT restrictions of the Traditional Plan. But the Council says only Annual Conferences can leave, but individual churches cannot.
So some of the worst of the Traditional Plan have been nullified. But that doesn’t mean the plan is dead. It’s still dangerous.
The February General Conference is just a few days. The overall plan will be voted on during the second day with the third day for refining it. That means those who support the Traditional Plan can say all the bad stuff is gone, it isn’t perfect, but we can fix it later. Vote for it! Smith wrote of the plan and its supporters:
Smith points out another aspect of the Judicial Council decision, the things they did not rule against. This, says Smith, means the JC wrote model legislation for further LGBTQ harm. The regular General Conference in 2020 could quote these Traditional Plan provisions, say they already pass constitutional muster, and should be given preference over other petitions. These provisions include such things as banning the eligibility of LGBTQ people serving as bishops, even if properly elected (overturning the one lesbian bishop we have), and upholding minimum trial penalties for officiating at same-sex weddings.
The first comment to Smith’s post was a declaration that if the Traditional Plan is approved the writer could in good conscience no longer be a member of the United Methodist Church. That is immediately followed by a person declaring she could no longer be a member if they don’t approve it. Another says the denomination is stuck in legalisms. And another laments a denomination that has become lawless.
This is my own opinion of what the denomination should do:
The Traditional Plan is vile, way too punitive for a church that says it is Christian, and should not be considered.
The Connectional Conference Plan is too complicated to be practical.
The One Church Plan is much better than the other two, but I still consider it evil. The reason is that it allows the denomination to continue oppressing LGBTQ people, approves of it, even though the justification of the oppression (the phrase that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching) is removed. But it gives that approval in a way that isn’t easily changed in a future General Conference.
My preference is for the Simple Plan, which removes the LGBTQ prohibitions and their justification (that incompatibility clause) and does nothing else. I’m aware this proposal is not officially on the agenda in February, though it has been submitted as a petition for legislative action (as it has been for every General Conference in the last 44 years).
The complicated Connectional Conference Plan proposes several changes to the denomination’s constitution. Because of that the Judicial Council ruled it had no authority to scrutinize the plan.
The Council unanimously decided there are a few problems with the One Church Plan, the one to allow each Annual Conference (region) to decide whether to ordain LGBT people or to permit same-sex marriages. The Traditional Plan, the one to tighten restrictions against LGBT people, has several significant problems.
Since I don’t want to wade through the 87 page decision, I turn to Rev. Jeremy Smith and his blog Hacking Christianity. He had a post about the decision ready the day after it was released.
Of the many pieces in the One Church Plan, only three sentences were declared unconstitutional, and in Smith’s opinion are irrelevant to the overall plan of “unity in diversity.”
The Traditionalist Plan is made up of 17 petitions (perhaps described a components). Nine of those were declared unconstitutional. The major points, according to Smith:
* The Council of Bishops was not designed to have its members policing each other for doctrinal purity.
* A Board of Ordained Ministry (the committee in each region that decides who may be a pastor) cannot reduce its decision to one aspect of a candidate (whether they are LGBT) and cannot single out one group of candidates for disqualification.
* The plan allows for Annual Conferences and individual churches to leave the denomination if they don’t like the LGBT restrictions of the Traditional Plan. But the Council says only Annual Conferences can leave, but individual churches cannot.
So some of the worst of the Traditional Plan have been nullified. But that doesn’t mean the plan is dead. It’s still dangerous.
The February General Conference is just a few days. The overall plan will be voted on during the second day with the third day for refining it. That means those who support the Traditional Plan can say all the bad stuff is gone, it isn’t perfect, but we can fix it later. Vote for it! Smith wrote of the plan and its supporters:
Their vision of a church without progressives and moderates is within reach and they won’t let our own court (even their hand-picked one) stand in the way. … All that matters is that the progressives leave, not that the plan is actually legal.
Smith points out another aspect of the Judicial Council decision, the things they did not rule against. This, says Smith, means the JC wrote model legislation for further LGBTQ harm. The regular General Conference in 2020 could quote these Traditional Plan provisions, say they already pass constitutional muster, and should be given preference over other petitions. These provisions include such things as banning the eligibility of LGBTQ people serving as bishops, even if properly elected (overturning the one lesbian bishop we have), and upholding minimum trial penalties for officiating at same-sex weddings.
The first comment to Smith’s post was a declaration that if the Traditional Plan is approved the writer could in good conscience no longer be a member of the United Methodist Church. That is immediately followed by a person declaring she could no longer be a member if they don’t approve it. Another says the denomination is stuck in legalisms. And another laments a denomination that has become lawless.
This is my own opinion of what the denomination should do:
The Traditional Plan is vile, way too punitive for a church that says it is Christian, and should not be considered.
The Connectional Conference Plan is too complicated to be practical.
The One Church Plan is much better than the other two, but I still consider it evil. The reason is that it allows the denomination to continue oppressing LGBTQ people, approves of it, even though the justification of the oppression (the phrase that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching) is removed. But it gives that approval in a way that isn’t easily changed in a future General Conference.
My preference is for the Simple Plan, which removes the LGBTQ prohibitions and their justification (that incompatibility clause) and does nothing else. I’m aware this proposal is not officially on the agenda in February, though it has been submitted as a petition for legislative action (as it has been for every General Conference in the last 44 years).
Friday, October 19, 2018
Fall Potluck and Program, November 4
Dedicated Reconciling United Methodists are presenting its annual Fall Potluck and Program on Sunday, November 4. The dinner is at 6:00. Please bring a dish to pass.
The program is at 7:00. The speaker will be Rev. Mark Thompson with a message about "One Person's Story." Rev. Thompson serves the Central United Methodist Church in Lansing and leads the Lansing Rainbow Cafe, which is an LGBT service organization.
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!
The program is at 7:00. The speaker will be Rev. Mark Thompson with a message about "One Person's Story." Rev. Thompson serves the Central United Methodist Church in Lansing and leads the Lansing Rainbow Cafe, which is an LGBT service organization.
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!
Monday, July 30, 2018
Report of Reconciling Ministries Convocation
A report on what I did and saw and learned from the Reconciling Ministries Convocation held at a hotel near the St. Louis airport. The city was chosen because it is where the special General Conference will be next February.
Thursday, July 26
Convo opened in the evening. One of the first announcements was that there would be a police presence during the whole event because some people had received threats. The announcer said that the organizers are very aware that for some people a police presence is a threat and not a reassurance. We are to be mindful of the white supremacy that creates that tension.
Attendance at this Convo is about 300. This is lower than the 6-700 in the past. Part of the reason is this one was a lot more hurriedly organized.
We opened with a worship service of welcome. Then came a bible study led by Rev. Dr. Tyler Schwaller, a white gay man, and Rev. Tonya Parker, a black woman, both of Wesleyan College in Macon, Ga. The overall theme of their several studies they said would have a feminist intersectional frame. Each talked for a few minutes before turning the topic over to the other. We got two perspectives on the scripture. In my notes I didn't record who said what.
The opening statement: A church that proclaims liberation but is obsessed with persecution is dead. Though the denomination is dead, the overall church is not.
The first text was Philippians 2:1-11. I won't repeat it here. A lot of this text refutes the ranking, the social hierarchy, I've talked about many times in my blogs. He opening verses say that while Jesus has the nature of God and could exploit that, he doesn't. The next verse (in some translations) say Jesus took on the nature of a slave. We don't like to use that word because it is embarrassing and we have to deal with acceptability politics. But what the verse is saying is Jesus took the position of the lowest member of society – so low that slaves were considered animals and not human. We were reminded that the life of a Roman slave was just as brutal as was the life of a slave in the American South.
Friday, July 27
The preacher for the morning worship service was Rev. David Meredith. He was charged with being a practicing homosexual (he married his partner). The charges were dropped. Then the case was reopened (I don't know the details) and he was convicted. He was betrayed by the fine print.
He played a clip from the movie Lincoln showing a bit of the debate over the 13th Amendment. The speaker said black people didn't need to be equal in all things, they just need to be equal before the law. This is equality with exceptions. We – and the Gospel – are betrayed. Meredith told the story of Philemon, a really short book in the bible. The story centers on the marginalized, in particular on a slave. Writer Paul tells the owner the one who was a slave is now a brother. He is to have full rights in all spheres of public life equal to those of the former owner. We are to strive for equality. Inclusion requires permission of the powerful. Equality does not.
Another bible study session. The team looked again at the passage from Philippians, this time focusing on a Greek word that they say is often mistranslated. The correct translation should be something like “rape and rob.” The Roman gods of the day were depicted as violent. They could rape and rob as they pleased. These gods supported the social hierarchy. Paul was making the point that Jesus is a god who is not violent, who does not rape and rob. Alas, Paul blows it by saying to Jesus every knee shall bow. That's an action that an imperialist demands. Paul had just told us that Jesus was not imperialist.
Four members of the Commission For a Way Forward shared their experiences. Two of them were two of the three LGBT members (yeah, the Commission was deciding gay issues with little gay presence). They said the whole process went very well – except that it was rigged from the start. And when they challenged the other members on this point the response was bafflement. When the process is rigged it can only take us so far.
Rev. Amy DeLong, who has gone through a church trial, commented that a flawed system has produced a flawed result and we must resist it.
The panel reviewed the proposals before General Conference 2019.
* The One Church Plan – The incompatibility clause is removed, current prohibitions are removed, and each Annual Conference or perhaps each congregation decides how to treat LGBT people, whether with equality or with discrimination.
* The Connectional Plan – The church creates three parallel structures for progressive, moderate, and conservative views and Annual Conferences and local churches choose which one to join. This one is highly complicated, requires several amendments to the denomination's constitution, and may take ten years to implement. Very few are treating is seriously.
* The Traditional Plan – This is the existing harm “on steroids.” Even worse, it is structured so that conservative churches can toss a lit match into the denomination as they sneak out the back door.
A fourth plan is being proposed:
* The Simple Plan – Remove the incompatibility clause, remove the LGBT restrictions and change nothing else.
Some people are suggesting another outcome: none of the proposals may pass. GC 2019 leaves us where we are now. Fresh proposals can be made for GC 2020.
The panel said that if any of the original three proposals pass there will still be harm to LGBT people. Even more, there may be harm where there was none before. While the One Church plan seems to be the best of the original three one black woman described it as moving from slavery to Jim Crow. The actual denomination wide prohibitions may be gone, but areas of the denomination can institute their own prohibitions.
A workshop titled Hope Floats, led by Sue Laurie. She was a longtime leader in the Reconciling Ministries organization. At time I thought this session was unfocused, but she did say some important things.
She started by saying, “Homosexuality is not a sin. Those who teach that need to be stopped.” The bishops know that homosexuality is not a sin. Yet, they continue to do nothing about those who keep teaching that it is.
People commented on the panel that had just met. The three gay members would say something and then “the machine kicked in to protect itself.” And nobody would name this self-preservation of power.
Sue said: “I could not despise the One Church Plan more.” It continues the harm. It says discrimination is still acceptable. Areas of the church will be free to write harmful rules, which will last a long time. We'll want out of an abusive relationship.
“Unity is the golden calf.” Too many people are refusing to act because, as they tell Sue, “We're with you, but we don't want to split the church.”
Sue hears people say if we just told our story... Sue responds, it's been done. She points to a pile of books spread out on the floor, each one telling part of the story. She even helped write at least one. So, she has to remind herself it's not her fault if we lose. We can educate all we want but there is an aspect of bigotry that education doesn't touch.
If the One Church Plan passes the Western Jurisdiction may pat itself on the back. Its congregations will be open and affirming. But a congregation in West Pennsylvania (Sue mentions this locale because she is from there and can't find a church home) will see the ship of affirmation sail away. So, is the One Church Plan better than what we have now? For many congregations, a resounding no.
Mittie Quinn did a workshop on The Long March: Are We There Yet? She reviewed the denomination's history of splits and reunitings. We split over slavery. We came back together but institutionalized racism. She then covered every step in the way the denomination treats LGBT people. Mittie says this type of presentation is able to talk about the issue without talking about human sexuality.
Our evening session was an address “Ain't I a Christian, Too?” given by Rev. Dr. Jay Williams. The United Methodist Book of Discipline has the phrase that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Williams said that if that phrase is true than LGBT people are not true Christians. We may be a child of God, but that's not the same as being Christian. This is an idea we must challenge.
And we challenge it by queering the church. The word “queer” includes the meanings interconnected, unique, and odd. And the church should be those things too. Some say we should move beyond the discussion of homosexuality – we've discussed it long enough. But homosexuality should be a defining matter for the church because justice is a defining matter for the church.
Williams also rejects the One Church Plan. Nobody has the freedom to put me in chains. This plan sanctions discrimination. It is theologically flawed and morally bankrupt.
Williams recognizes the issue is about social dominance. We must reject the church's pathological obsession with policing the queer body. The UMC is a police state. Queer people aren't safe in church. This is the same logic as white supremacy. It is a power that repeatedly kills.
The denomination has used the phrase “for the transformation of the world.” That can't happen until we have a transformation of the church.
Our ethics should not be based on rules but on holistic living. We should show our solidarity with other oppressed people.
Saturday, July 28
The morning preacher was Rev. Starsky Wilson. All of us have unfinished business, a list of things that need to be done. Some of these things never get done. But there are some things we can't leave unfinished.
We must have responsible agency. There are a lot of things in this world that cry out for us to do something. We can feel overwhelmed. So do the things we can do. Don't wait.
We must have a resurrected identity. Many groups try to deny that Jesus had a body, that he was fully human. But a lot of the Christian story falls apart of Jesus doesn't have a body. Now we're that body. If someone on the outside looks in do they see us as a resurrected body? Or do they see a dead body?
We must be reconciling. Wilson discussed the scene after the resurrection in which Jesus hosts a fish fry for the disciples and asks Peter, “Do you love me?” A previous scene with Peter was at the trial of Jesus when Peter denies him three times. So after the fish fry Jesus reconciles with Peter. This is a critically necessary scene. If Jesus did not do this he would have contradicted all of his prior ministry and the Christian church would not exist.
Williams worked up a litany beginning with, “If there is no Bayard Rustin there is no Civil Rights movement.” He listed perhaps ten names this way, most I didn't recognize. I am familiar with Bayard Rustin, a critical organizer within the movement and also gay. Williams told us that all of the people he mentioned are gay or lesbian.
The service ended after we were each anointed with oil.
The next bible study was about two stories of healing. The first is recorded in both Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. It is the Centurion asking Jesus to heal his slave. The second is Mark 7:25-30 and Matthew 15:21-28 and is about the gentile woman who argues with Jesus about healing her daughter and uses the line even the dogs eat the crumbs under the table.
In that first story there are some interesting features. First, the person to be healed. Luke uses the word for slave (and if the word was translated as servant, cross it out and write in slave – it was a person who was dehumanized). But Matthew uses a different word that can mean youth or even boy-love, yes, implying a same-sex lover.
Second, the Centurion, a person of power, recognizes the power in Jesus. This is a story about the Centurion. Jesus never meets the one he heals. The Centurion is likely thinking in terms of a patron-client relationship with Jesus as the patron. In that time the patron might steal a lover, so the Centurion wants to avoid contact.
Third, this is healing for one. Healing and liberation for one is good, but much better if it is for everyone.
In the second story the gentile woman absorbs the insult of being called a dog, but won't let that stop her from getting the healing for her daughter she know Jesus can provide. The figurative dogs being described are not wild, but pets in the house.
It seems this woman is telling Jesus is mission is not just to the Jews. An audience member notes this is the one time Jesus takes correction and it is from a woman. Without her we would not be Christians.
Another important point: The Centurion said he wanted healing for his slave/lover but he was not worthy of the attention from Jesus. The gentile woman said she is worthy and pesters Jesus until she gets what she wants.
The gentile woman settles for crumbs. What if we got only crumbs? But we're tired of crumbs, not just us, but everyone. We can learn from the boldness of the gentile woman.
On both Friday and Saturday the worship services took a lot longer than had planned, so adjustments were made to the schedule. On Saturday that meant our meetings by jurisdiction were only half as long as originally planned.
Alex Shanks is the coordinator for the North-Central Jurisdiction (Ohio to the Dakotas). He started only last October and is working part time for Reconciling Ministries. So contact with him may be slow. Because time was short he went directly to eight things we can do before the General Conference in February.
1. Engage the issue at district and Annual Conference meetings.
2. If conversations aren’t happening bring it to the attention of the bishop or district superintendent.
3. Ask the local pastor if such a discussion has been scheduled or ask why not. The bishops say each congregation is supposed to engage with the issue. Is yours?
4. Host your own conversation in your home or as part of a Sunday School class.
5. Contact the delegates to GC from your area. Thank them for their work and support. Share some stories to indicate why we fell strongly. If a delegate is undecided, tell Alex.
6. Get involved in Reconciling Ministries leadership in your Annual Conference.
7. Continue to encourage local churches to go through the reconciling process.
8. Be a part of the Reconciling Ministries video project.
The Reconciling Ministries Network’s official view is all three of the proposals from the Commission For a Way Forward do not provide justice. They support the Simple Plan. However, they are aware that the One Church Plan is more likely – at least it gets rid of the incompatibility clause. A reminder the Simple Plan does that too and without the baggage of allowing conservative churches to continue to discriminate.
Those in the room were concerned that official view sounded like we’ve already set our default support for the One Church Plan. What we want is full support for the Simple Plan as our starting position and the One Church Plan as a possible, though less desirable, negotiated compromise.
Rev. Dr. Traci West spoke on valuing bodies. She said a lot about what I’ve said in my discussions of ranking, but in ways not easy for me to understand. However, I agree with her main point: We are classified at birth by our bodies, by its gender and skin color. Those of us in lower positions in the social hierarchy experience violence against our bodies. We experience that violence because violence is the quickest and most sure way to enforce the hierarchy.
After lunch we listened to Bishop Karen Oliveto answer questions and tell stories of her first two years as the denomination’s first lesbian bishop. Her territory is Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and Montana. In some areas of the country there is a United Methodist Church every 2-3 (or 20-30) miles. In this area there is a church every 200-300 miles. Many are small, but are the only progressive Protestant voice in town. Oliveto says that instead of a Bishop’s residence (in Denver) she should have a Bishop’s RV. She has vowed to visit every church in her area and has visited over 300 of the over 400 churches. Some have told her that a bishop has never visited before.
Oliveto has received several boxes of letters of support. Many of them say thanks for being there. Your presence in that job gives hope. Letters in opposition: 50. Parents of gay kids have been reluctant to ask their congregations for support. She tells them look at the way your congregation has supported a lesbian bishop. Alas, she has also heard, “Well, you broke the rules, so I can …”
As for General Conference in 2019 she says we need to lay down our arms. We’ve been using the Book of Discipline as a weapon. But no matter how GC goes most members look to the local congregation and not to the global institution. To those at the top of the social hierarchy she says we can use our privilege to make space for others and to declare our passion for diversity.
Oliveto says one of her favorite bible verses is Deuteronomy 30:19 – “I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life.”
On to a third workshop. This one was Sacred Resistance, led by Rev. Ben Roberts, the Director of Social Justice Ministries at Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington, DC, and Ed Crump, a lay leader in many of those ministries. After the 2016 elections their members participated in resistance actions (usually protests) about once a week for a year. That was leading to burnout, so they are working to develop a new strategy.
The first step in resistance work: show up. That includes the church as well as individual members.
What makes resistance sacred is such things as live in peace and justice (even while protesting), actively respond to an issue, work toward the common good, focus on the needs of others, advocate the vulnerable, attempt to love everyone, avoid the binary choice, resist self-protection, resist retaliation, resist the “win,” emphasize community, remember the goal is justice for all. A guiding phrase is from Martin Luther King: “Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.”
Ed described one action in which he went with DACA recipients to talk to several senators. When the group walked in the door the senator looked to Ed, the white male, as the presumed leader. Ed could do what Bishop Oliveto described. “Hello Senator, I’d like you to meet some of my friends.” He used his privilege to make space for others and let them speak for themselves. With Ed there the senator could not say they’re not voters, I don’t care about them. One of the senators talked about his support for compromise legislation. A DACA youth said, “You’re talking about my mother.”
Ed suggested ways of making all this happen while avoiding burnout. Study the ways in which Jesus supported and lived in community. Break feelings of isolation. Don’t act for someone, act with. Ask those affected what they want the solution to be. Immerse yourself in love (scripture and books on loving resistance), which may need to be done frequently, perhaps daily. There are songs of resistance – learn them and teach them to the participants (which means having a training session before the protest begins).
Explain your resistance to the rest of the congregation, preferably during worship services. Resistance isn’t just protest. Foundry Church has found lots of ways to help those at the low end of the social hierarchy. That help includes advocacy.
After our evening banquet several people talked about our movement’s history by decade. Affirmation for Lesbians and Gays began in 1974. In 1984 they started the Reconciling Church movement and soon released it into a separate organization. The last presenter Jarell Wilson, a seminary student, talked about his hope for the future. He said he and his colleagues will be the first generation to come to the pulpit already out.
Sunday, July 29
The morning events were an invitation to be a witness to General Conference 2019, a bible study, and a concluding communion service. Reading through my notes I don’t have much more to add. Only this:
Working through the process to become a Reconciling Church is a great way to grow the congregation with a side benefit of getting them interested in social justice issues.
Thursday, July 26
Convo opened in the evening. One of the first announcements was that there would be a police presence during the whole event because some people had received threats. The announcer said that the organizers are very aware that for some people a police presence is a threat and not a reassurance. We are to be mindful of the white supremacy that creates that tension.
Attendance at this Convo is about 300. This is lower than the 6-700 in the past. Part of the reason is this one was a lot more hurriedly organized.
We opened with a worship service of welcome. Then came a bible study led by Rev. Dr. Tyler Schwaller, a white gay man, and Rev. Tonya Parker, a black woman, both of Wesleyan College in Macon, Ga. The overall theme of their several studies they said would have a feminist intersectional frame. Each talked for a few minutes before turning the topic over to the other. We got two perspectives on the scripture. In my notes I didn't record who said what.
The opening statement: A church that proclaims liberation but is obsessed with persecution is dead. Though the denomination is dead, the overall church is not.
The first text was Philippians 2:1-11. I won't repeat it here. A lot of this text refutes the ranking, the social hierarchy, I've talked about many times in my blogs. He opening verses say that while Jesus has the nature of God and could exploit that, he doesn't. The next verse (in some translations) say Jesus took on the nature of a slave. We don't like to use that word because it is embarrassing and we have to deal with acceptability politics. But what the verse is saying is Jesus took the position of the lowest member of society – so low that slaves were considered animals and not human. We were reminded that the life of a Roman slave was just as brutal as was the life of a slave in the American South.
Friday, July 27
The preacher for the morning worship service was Rev. David Meredith. He was charged with being a practicing homosexual (he married his partner). The charges were dropped. Then the case was reopened (I don't know the details) and he was convicted. He was betrayed by the fine print.
He played a clip from the movie Lincoln showing a bit of the debate over the 13th Amendment. The speaker said black people didn't need to be equal in all things, they just need to be equal before the law. This is equality with exceptions. We – and the Gospel – are betrayed. Meredith told the story of Philemon, a really short book in the bible. The story centers on the marginalized, in particular on a slave. Writer Paul tells the owner the one who was a slave is now a brother. He is to have full rights in all spheres of public life equal to those of the former owner. We are to strive for equality. Inclusion requires permission of the powerful. Equality does not.
Another bible study session. The team looked again at the passage from Philippians, this time focusing on a Greek word that they say is often mistranslated. The correct translation should be something like “rape and rob.” The Roman gods of the day were depicted as violent. They could rape and rob as they pleased. These gods supported the social hierarchy. Paul was making the point that Jesus is a god who is not violent, who does not rape and rob. Alas, Paul blows it by saying to Jesus every knee shall bow. That's an action that an imperialist demands. Paul had just told us that Jesus was not imperialist.
Four members of the Commission For a Way Forward shared their experiences. Two of them were two of the three LGBT members (yeah, the Commission was deciding gay issues with little gay presence). They said the whole process went very well – except that it was rigged from the start. And when they challenged the other members on this point the response was bafflement. When the process is rigged it can only take us so far.
Rev. Amy DeLong, who has gone through a church trial, commented that a flawed system has produced a flawed result and we must resist it.
The panel reviewed the proposals before General Conference 2019.
* The One Church Plan – The incompatibility clause is removed, current prohibitions are removed, and each Annual Conference or perhaps each congregation decides how to treat LGBT people, whether with equality or with discrimination.
* The Connectional Plan – The church creates three parallel structures for progressive, moderate, and conservative views and Annual Conferences and local churches choose which one to join. This one is highly complicated, requires several amendments to the denomination's constitution, and may take ten years to implement. Very few are treating is seriously.
* The Traditional Plan – This is the existing harm “on steroids.” Even worse, it is structured so that conservative churches can toss a lit match into the denomination as they sneak out the back door.
A fourth plan is being proposed:
* The Simple Plan – Remove the incompatibility clause, remove the LGBT restrictions and change nothing else.
Some people are suggesting another outcome: none of the proposals may pass. GC 2019 leaves us where we are now. Fresh proposals can be made for GC 2020.
The panel said that if any of the original three proposals pass there will still be harm to LGBT people. Even more, there may be harm where there was none before. While the One Church plan seems to be the best of the original three one black woman described it as moving from slavery to Jim Crow. The actual denomination wide prohibitions may be gone, but areas of the denomination can institute their own prohibitions.
A workshop titled Hope Floats, led by Sue Laurie. She was a longtime leader in the Reconciling Ministries organization. At time I thought this session was unfocused, but she did say some important things.
She started by saying, “Homosexuality is not a sin. Those who teach that need to be stopped.” The bishops know that homosexuality is not a sin. Yet, they continue to do nothing about those who keep teaching that it is.
People commented on the panel that had just met. The three gay members would say something and then “the machine kicked in to protect itself.” And nobody would name this self-preservation of power.
Sue said: “I could not despise the One Church Plan more.” It continues the harm. It says discrimination is still acceptable. Areas of the church will be free to write harmful rules, which will last a long time. We'll want out of an abusive relationship.
“Unity is the golden calf.” Too many people are refusing to act because, as they tell Sue, “We're with you, but we don't want to split the church.”
Sue hears people say if we just told our story... Sue responds, it's been done. She points to a pile of books spread out on the floor, each one telling part of the story. She even helped write at least one. So, she has to remind herself it's not her fault if we lose. We can educate all we want but there is an aspect of bigotry that education doesn't touch.
If the One Church Plan passes the Western Jurisdiction may pat itself on the back. Its congregations will be open and affirming. But a congregation in West Pennsylvania (Sue mentions this locale because she is from there and can't find a church home) will see the ship of affirmation sail away. So, is the One Church Plan better than what we have now? For many congregations, a resounding no.
Mittie Quinn did a workshop on The Long March: Are We There Yet? She reviewed the denomination's history of splits and reunitings. We split over slavery. We came back together but institutionalized racism. She then covered every step in the way the denomination treats LGBT people. Mittie says this type of presentation is able to talk about the issue without talking about human sexuality.
Our evening session was an address “Ain't I a Christian, Too?” given by Rev. Dr. Jay Williams. The United Methodist Book of Discipline has the phrase that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Williams said that if that phrase is true than LGBT people are not true Christians. We may be a child of God, but that's not the same as being Christian. This is an idea we must challenge.
And we challenge it by queering the church. The word “queer” includes the meanings interconnected, unique, and odd. And the church should be those things too. Some say we should move beyond the discussion of homosexuality – we've discussed it long enough. But homosexuality should be a defining matter for the church because justice is a defining matter for the church.
Williams also rejects the One Church Plan. Nobody has the freedom to put me in chains. This plan sanctions discrimination. It is theologically flawed and morally bankrupt.
Williams recognizes the issue is about social dominance. We must reject the church's pathological obsession with policing the queer body. The UMC is a police state. Queer people aren't safe in church. This is the same logic as white supremacy. It is a power that repeatedly kills.
The denomination has used the phrase “for the transformation of the world.” That can't happen until we have a transformation of the church.
Our ethics should not be based on rules but on holistic living. We should show our solidarity with other oppressed people.
Saturday, July 28
The morning preacher was Rev. Starsky Wilson. All of us have unfinished business, a list of things that need to be done. Some of these things never get done. But there are some things we can't leave unfinished.
We must have responsible agency. There are a lot of things in this world that cry out for us to do something. We can feel overwhelmed. So do the things we can do. Don't wait.
We must have a resurrected identity. Many groups try to deny that Jesus had a body, that he was fully human. But a lot of the Christian story falls apart of Jesus doesn't have a body. Now we're that body. If someone on the outside looks in do they see us as a resurrected body? Or do they see a dead body?
We must be reconciling. Wilson discussed the scene after the resurrection in which Jesus hosts a fish fry for the disciples and asks Peter, “Do you love me?” A previous scene with Peter was at the trial of Jesus when Peter denies him three times. So after the fish fry Jesus reconciles with Peter. This is a critically necessary scene. If Jesus did not do this he would have contradicted all of his prior ministry and the Christian church would not exist.
Williams worked up a litany beginning with, “If there is no Bayard Rustin there is no Civil Rights movement.” He listed perhaps ten names this way, most I didn't recognize. I am familiar with Bayard Rustin, a critical organizer within the movement and also gay. Williams told us that all of the people he mentioned are gay or lesbian.
The service ended after we were each anointed with oil.
The next bible study was about two stories of healing. The first is recorded in both Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. It is the Centurion asking Jesus to heal his slave. The second is Mark 7:25-30 and Matthew 15:21-28 and is about the gentile woman who argues with Jesus about healing her daughter and uses the line even the dogs eat the crumbs under the table.
In that first story there are some interesting features. First, the person to be healed. Luke uses the word for slave (and if the word was translated as servant, cross it out and write in slave – it was a person who was dehumanized). But Matthew uses a different word that can mean youth or even boy-love, yes, implying a same-sex lover.
Second, the Centurion, a person of power, recognizes the power in Jesus. This is a story about the Centurion. Jesus never meets the one he heals. The Centurion is likely thinking in terms of a patron-client relationship with Jesus as the patron. In that time the patron might steal a lover, so the Centurion wants to avoid contact.
Third, this is healing for one. Healing and liberation for one is good, but much better if it is for everyone.
In the second story the gentile woman absorbs the insult of being called a dog, but won't let that stop her from getting the healing for her daughter she know Jesus can provide. The figurative dogs being described are not wild, but pets in the house.
It seems this woman is telling Jesus is mission is not just to the Jews. An audience member notes this is the one time Jesus takes correction and it is from a woman. Without her we would not be Christians.
Another important point: The Centurion said he wanted healing for his slave/lover but he was not worthy of the attention from Jesus. The gentile woman said she is worthy and pesters Jesus until she gets what she wants.
The gentile woman settles for crumbs. What if we got only crumbs? But we're tired of crumbs, not just us, but everyone. We can learn from the boldness of the gentile woman.
On both Friday and Saturday the worship services took a lot longer than had planned, so adjustments were made to the schedule. On Saturday that meant our meetings by jurisdiction were only half as long as originally planned.
Alex Shanks is the coordinator for the North-Central Jurisdiction (Ohio to the Dakotas). He started only last October and is working part time for Reconciling Ministries. So contact with him may be slow. Because time was short he went directly to eight things we can do before the General Conference in February.
1. Engage the issue at district and Annual Conference meetings.
2. If conversations aren’t happening bring it to the attention of the bishop or district superintendent.
3. Ask the local pastor if such a discussion has been scheduled or ask why not. The bishops say each congregation is supposed to engage with the issue. Is yours?
4. Host your own conversation in your home or as part of a Sunday School class.
5. Contact the delegates to GC from your area. Thank them for their work and support. Share some stories to indicate why we fell strongly. If a delegate is undecided, tell Alex.
6. Get involved in Reconciling Ministries leadership in your Annual Conference.
7. Continue to encourage local churches to go through the reconciling process.
8. Be a part of the Reconciling Ministries video project.
The Reconciling Ministries Network’s official view is all three of the proposals from the Commission For a Way Forward do not provide justice. They support the Simple Plan. However, they are aware that the One Church Plan is more likely – at least it gets rid of the incompatibility clause. A reminder the Simple Plan does that too and without the baggage of allowing conservative churches to continue to discriminate.
Those in the room were concerned that official view sounded like we’ve already set our default support for the One Church Plan. What we want is full support for the Simple Plan as our starting position and the One Church Plan as a possible, though less desirable, negotiated compromise.
Rev. Dr. Traci West spoke on valuing bodies. She said a lot about what I’ve said in my discussions of ranking, but in ways not easy for me to understand. However, I agree with her main point: We are classified at birth by our bodies, by its gender and skin color. Those of us in lower positions in the social hierarchy experience violence against our bodies. We experience that violence because violence is the quickest and most sure way to enforce the hierarchy.
After lunch we listened to Bishop Karen Oliveto answer questions and tell stories of her first two years as the denomination’s first lesbian bishop. Her territory is Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and Montana. In some areas of the country there is a United Methodist Church every 2-3 (or 20-30) miles. In this area there is a church every 200-300 miles. Many are small, but are the only progressive Protestant voice in town. Oliveto says that instead of a Bishop’s residence (in Denver) she should have a Bishop’s RV. She has vowed to visit every church in her area and has visited over 300 of the over 400 churches. Some have told her that a bishop has never visited before.
Oliveto has received several boxes of letters of support. Many of them say thanks for being there. Your presence in that job gives hope. Letters in opposition: 50. Parents of gay kids have been reluctant to ask their congregations for support. She tells them look at the way your congregation has supported a lesbian bishop. Alas, she has also heard, “Well, you broke the rules, so I can …”
As for General Conference in 2019 she says we need to lay down our arms. We’ve been using the Book of Discipline as a weapon. But no matter how GC goes most members look to the local congregation and not to the global institution. To those at the top of the social hierarchy she says we can use our privilege to make space for others and to declare our passion for diversity.
Oliveto says one of her favorite bible verses is Deuteronomy 30:19 – “I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life.”
On to a third workshop. This one was Sacred Resistance, led by Rev. Ben Roberts, the Director of Social Justice Ministries at Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington, DC, and Ed Crump, a lay leader in many of those ministries. After the 2016 elections their members participated in resistance actions (usually protests) about once a week for a year. That was leading to burnout, so they are working to develop a new strategy.
The first step in resistance work: show up. That includes the church as well as individual members.
What makes resistance sacred is such things as live in peace and justice (even while protesting), actively respond to an issue, work toward the common good, focus on the needs of others, advocate the vulnerable, attempt to love everyone, avoid the binary choice, resist self-protection, resist retaliation, resist the “win,” emphasize community, remember the goal is justice for all. A guiding phrase is from Martin Luther King: “Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.”
Ed described one action in which he went with DACA recipients to talk to several senators. When the group walked in the door the senator looked to Ed, the white male, as the presumed leader. Ed could do what Bishop Oliveto described. “Hello Senator, I’d like you to meet some of my friends.” He used his privilege to make space for others and let them speak for themselves. With Ed there the senator could not say they’re not voters, I don’t care about them. One of the senators talked about his support for compromise legislation. A DACA youth said, “You’re talking about my mother.”
Ed suggested ways of making all this happen while avoiding burnout. Study the ways in which Jesus supported and lived in community. Break feelings of isolation. Don’t act for someone, act with. Ask those affected what they want the solution to be. Immerse yourself in love (scripture and books on loving resistance), which may need to be done frequently, perhaps daily. There are songs of resistance – learn them and teach them to the participants (which means having a training session before the protest begins).
Explain your resistance to the rest of the congregation, preferably during worship services. Resistance isn’t just protest. Foundry Church has found lots of ways to help those at the low end of the social hierarchy. That help includes advocacy.
After our evening banquet several people talked about our movement’s history by decade. Affirmation for Lesbians and Gays began in 1974. In 1984 they started the Reconciling Church movement and soon released it into a separate organization. The last presenter Jarell Wilson, a seminary student, talked about his hope for the future. He said he and his colleagues will be the first generation to come to the pulpit already out.
Sunday, July 29
The morning events were an invitation to be a witness to General Conference 2019, a bible study, and a concluding communion service. Reading through my notes I don’t have much more to add. Only this:
Working through the process to become a Reconciling Church is a great way to grow the congregation with a side benefit of getting them interested in social justice issues.
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Defining unity
Rev. Jeremy Smith, in his blog Hacking Christianity, talks about unity within the United Methodist Church. It is an important topic because the denomination faces a unity question at the special General Conference next February. There is also a lot of buzz around the phrase, “a new form of unity.” So what does “unity” mean?
Already, in this diverse denomination, unity doesn’t mean uniformity. There may be a standard service in the hymnal, but few churches follow it. A service in the city, at a megachurch, at a Native American congregation, in the Philippines, or in Africa will all look different. Our polity statements include multiple viewpoints. Our Covenant is not international or national, but regional. We don’t require a set of beliefs. Even our guiding Book of Discipline is adapted by regions in Africa.
Unity means Diversity in Expression, United in Mission. The One Church plan to be voted on in February allows for each region, perhaps each congregation, to set its own guidance on such things as same-sex marriage. It may be flawed, but comes close to this version of unity.
But the Wesleyan Covenant Association and related conservative groups have a different definition of unity:
Smith gets into Girardian scapegoat theory. When the dominant power structure of a group is challenged unanimity can only be restored when all become fixated on someone who can be held responsible. When that someone (or group) is expelled those who remain forge a new social unity in opposition to those who left. But they soon need someone else to hold responsible. Smith says the United Methodist Church is right now a textbook example of Girardian scapegoat theory.
An example of this at work is the Anglican Church of North America. They broke from the Episcopal Church over LGBTQ issues. Glad we got rid of them! And one of the first things they did was ban the ordination of women.
What should we be aiming for? Smith says “diversity without enmity” – “the church does not challenge the way we look at one another and hold one another.”
Already, in this diverse denomination, unity doesn’t mean uniformity. There may be a standard service in the hymnal, but few churches follow it. A service in the city, at a megachurch, at a Native American congregation, in the Philippines, or in Africa will all look different. Our polity statements include multiple viewpoints. Our Covenant is not international or national, but regional. We don’t require a set of beliefs. Even our guiding Book of Discipline is adapted by regions in Africa.
Unity means Diversity in Expression, United in Mission. The One Church plan to be voted on in February allows for each region, perhaps each congregation, to set its own guidance on such things as same-sex marriage. It may be flawed, but comes close to this version of unity.
But the Wesleyan Covenant Association and related conservative groups have a different definition of unity:
A new form of unity…seeks to bless progressive conferences as they form a new denomination that can be fully inclusive of LGBTQ persons. It provides for a similar kind of unity that the UMC has with the AME, CME, and AMEZ denominations today but envisions closer cooperation on mission.This needs a translation. AME is African Methodist Episcopal. AMEZ is AME-Zion. I don’t remember what CME is. These are black denominations that split from the Methodist Church because of slavery and racism. They didn’t rejoin when the United Methodist Church was formed in 1968. So what the conservatives are saying is: We’ll bless your departure. Unity means we’ll all treat LGBTQ people the same way – our way.
Smith gets into Girardian scapegoat theory. When the dominant power structure of a group is challenged unanimity can only be restored when all become fixated on someone who can be held responsible. When that someone (or group) is expelled those who remain forge a new social unity in opposition to those who left. But they soon need someone else to hold responsible. Smith says the United Methodist Church is right now a textbook example of Girardian scapegoat theory.
An example of this at work is the Anglican Church of North America. They broke from the Episcopal Church over LGBTQ issues. Glad we got rid of them! And one of the first things they did was ban the ordination of women.
What should we be aiming for? Smith says “diversity without enmity” – “the church does not challenge the way we look at one another and hold one another.”
Sunday, May 6, 2018
Bishops recommend a Way Forward plan
I recently got an email of a press release from the United Methodist Council of Bishops and their meeting in Chicago.
I had posted that the bishops and created a Commission on a Way Forward and the commission had done its work, sending a report to the bishops. This press release noted the commission considered three plans for the denomination’s future, the Traditionalist Plan, the One Church Plan, and the Connectional Conference Plan. The release also said the bishops strongly endorsed the One Church Plan and gave their reasons. All three plans are to be presented to the special General Conference scheduled for next February.
However, this press release did not describe the three plans.
The details of the plans and the legislative proposals to implement them are still being completed. They will then be translated into the official languages of the General Conference (this is a world-wide denomination). Release is expected about July 8.
Though the Council of Bishops didn’t release details of the plans, individual bishops, in letters to their pastors, did release broad outlines. Bishop John Schol is one who did so.
The Traditionalist plan would strengthen the language against (Schol used the word “about”) homosexuality in the Book of Discipline and strengthen punishment for those who disobey.
Schol says the Council of Bishops doesn’t like this plan because of the pain of individuals and congregations as well as the disruption and distraction of church trials.
The Connectional Conference Plan allows districts or congregations to decided if they want to be under one of three umbrella conferences – progressive, centrist, or conservative. Each of these conferences could modify or reject parts of the Book of Discipline.
The Council of Bishops rejects this plan because it is based on segregation. That didn’t work well for Methodism between 1939 and 1968 when it was racial segregation. It would also take maybe 10 years to implement.
The One Church Plan allows congregations to decide their marriage policies and pastors to determine who they will marry. Each district decides who is fit for the ministry.
The Council of Bishops, says Schol, recommends this plan because it does not require congregations to think and act alike and preserves unity in the midst of differences.
In the meantime a court case over a breakaway church is proceeding. Within the United Methodist Church, though a congregation may raise the money to build a church, the denomination owns it in trust. I just learned that’s why a congregational committee in charge of the building is known as the trustees. A conservative faction, the Wesleyan Covenant Association, is providing the legal support for a congregation attempting to leave the denomination while keeping their building. They are also offering their services to any other congregation that might want to do the same. But isn’t this the group demanding obedience to the Book of Discipline on homosexuality while they defy it here? Rev. Jeremy Smith of Hacking Christianity notes:
Rev. Smith notes that no matter the plan some pockets of United Methodism will continue to discriminate against LGBTQ people. All three plans allow at least some congregations or conferences to discriminate. Smith compares this to what the denomination did with women and African-American clergy.
Smith also warns that given a chance conservatives will squeeze progressives out of the denomination’s power structure. An example of that: The Western Jurisdiction (Colorado and west) is the most progressive (they even have a lesbian bishop). One proposal that might show up in a minority report suggests absorbing the Western Jurisdiction into another (more conservative) region.
I had posted that the bishops and created a Commission on a Way Forward and the commission had done its work, sending a report to the bishops. This press release noted the commission considered three plans for the denomination’s future, the Traditionalist Plan, the One Church Plan, and the Connectional Conference Plan. The release also said the bishops strongly endorsed the One Church Plan and gave their reasons. All three plans are to be presented to the special General Conference scheduled for next February.
However, this press release did not describe the three plans.
The details of the plans and the legislative proposals to implement them are still being completed. They will then be translated into the official languages of the General Conference (this is a world-wide denomination). Release is expected about July 8.
Though the Council of Bishops didn’t release details of the plans, individual bishops, in letters to their pastors, did release broad outlines. Bishop John Schol is one who did so.
The Traditionalist plan would strengthen the language against (Schol used the word “about”) homosexuality in the Book of Discipline and strengthen punishment for those who disobey.
Schol says the Council of Bishops doesn’t like this plan because of the pain of individuals and congregations as well as the disruption and distraction of church trials.
The Connectional Conference Plan allows districts or congregations to decided if they want to be under one of three umbrella conferences – progressive, centrist, or conservative. Each of these conferences could modify or reject parts of the Book of Discipline.
The Council of Bishops rejects this plan because it is based on segregation. That didn’t work well for Methodism between 1939 and 1968 when it was racial segregation. It would also take maybe 10 years to implement.
The One Church Plan allows congregations to decide their marriage policies and pastors to determine who they will marry. Each district decides who is fit for the ministry.
The Council of Bishops, says Schol, recommends this plan because it does not require congregations to think and act alike and preserves unity in the midst of differences.
In the meantime a court case over a breakaway church is proceeding. Within the United Methodist Church, though a congregation may raise the money to build a church, the denomination owns it in trust. I just learned that’s why a congregational committee in charge of the building is known as the trustees. A conservative faction, the Wesleyan Covenant Association, is providing the legal support for a congregation attempting to leave the denomination while keeping their building. They are also offering their services to any other congregation that might want to do the same. But isn’t this the group demanding obedience to the Book of Discipline on homosexuality while they defy it here? Rev. Jeremy Smith of Hacking Christianity notes:
Every church that leaves Methodism makes it weaker and easier to bargain with or hold hostage. And every church that leaves brings in more money to the official legal counsel of the Wesleyan Covenant Association, who can advertise his services to more people.
Rev. Smith notes that no matter the plan some pockets of United Methodism will continue to discriminate against LGBTQ people. All three plans allow at least some congregations or conferences to discriminate. Smith compares this to what the denomination did with women and African-American clergy.
Smith also warns that given a chance conservatives will squeeze progressives out of the denomination’s power structure. An example of that: The Western Jurisdiction (Colorado and west) is the most progressive (they even have a lesbian bishop). One proposal that might show up in a minority report suggests absorbing the Western Jurisdiction into another (more conservative) region.
Sunday, April 1, 2018
Way Forward is done, conservatives announce intentions
Back in 2016 the General Conference of the United Methodist Church was very close to schism over the issue of homosexuality. The delegates approved the creation of a Commission on a Way Forward, tasked with outlining how the denomination might stay together. The commission’s final report is done and will be given to the Council of Bishops at the end of this month. It has not yet been made public, though commission members and various bishops are optimistic. From the report the Bishops will create a proposal for what the denomination should do. It will be voted on at a special General Conference next February. This GC will consider only this proposal. The next regular GC is in 2020.
The conservative part of the denomination has always been active, insisting on prohibitions of LGBTQ clergy and members since the first General Conference in 1972. These various movements have coalesced into the Wesleyan Covenant Association, formed a few years ago. As Rev. Jeremy Smith discusses in his blog Hacking Christianity, the WCA has now announced their intentions.
If the proposal from the Council of Bishops isn’t sufficiently conservative (sufficiently restrictive on LGBTQ people) they will submit their own minority report (and in the rules of the denomination, the minority report gets voted on first). And if their report isn’t approved, they will begin a schism. Do it our way or else.
They may not demand the delegates vote on specific articles of separation. Instead, “the WCA will provide a home for laity, clergy, and churches committed to what has been historically taught...” And they’ll provide legal counsel to help churches get out of their contracts with the denomination (for example, though a congregation pays for building their church, the denomination owns it).
The big questions:
First: Will the WCA pull the moderates to their side? Over the last few decades and quite a bit through the last six years the conservatives have been building a parallel structure of of publishers, seminaries, and missionaries outside the control of the bishops and denomination agencies. At the same time they have been claiming a minority, persecuted status, especially claiming persecution by the bishops. And moderates have fallen for it.
Second: If the conservative resolution passes, what will progressives do? Will they prize “unity” over principle (which LGBTQ people feel has been happening for at least a decade) and leave us under restrictions at least as bad as what we have now? Or will progressives demand a split?
Rev. Smith notes there are three things at the center of the denomination’s current crisis:
1. A failure to develop a robust sexual ethic (mostly around LGBTQ people).
2. A failure to include minority perspectives and promote diversity.
3. A failure to play fair with the processes created by General Conference to resolve 1 and 2.
All three failures are from the efforts of various conservative groups. Rev. Smith describes it as conservatives creating a crisis and then selling the only solution to the crisis. Instead of offering a Way Forward they are pushing for a Way Out.
Much of this wrangling of the national and global denomination is of intense interest to me because the lives of fellow LGBTQ people are affected by these decisions. But, as I’ve said before, it doesn’t really affect what I will do until it affects my local church.
My local church is doing wonderful work. They promote diversity and inclusion (though they haven’t been very loud about the gay welcome lately). I feel pretty good about attending.
The General Conference decisions, in either direction, may have no impact on my local congregation. But there could be a very big impact.
* A schism may leave either or both sides with insufficient financial resources and the denomination collapses.
* The conservative side wins and demands each church crack down on their LGBTQ members. In the last two GCs harsher rules were avoided mostly by avoiding votes on them.
* The WCA entices congregations to join them or demands each congregation choose. My congregation votes on the issue and is split by it, resulting on harsh feelings all around – not good for building an institution that’s supposed to be built on love and inclusion.
We know their intentions. Do we have the time and influence to shape the outcome?
The conservative part of the denomination has always been active, insisting on prohibitions of LGBTQ clergy and members since the first General Conference in 1972. These various movements have coalesced into the Wesleyan Covenant Association, formed a few years ago. As Rev. Jeremy Smith discusses in his blog Hacking Christianity, the WCA has now announced their intentions.
If the proposal from the Council of Bishops isn’t sufficiently conservative (sufficiently restrictive on LGBTQ people) they will submit their own minority report (and in the rules of the denomination, the minority report gets voted on first). And if their report isn’t approved, they will begin a schism. Do it our way or else.
They may not demand the delegates vote on specific articles of separation. Instead, “the WCA will provide a home for laity, clergy, and churches committed to what has been historically taught...” And they’ll provide legal counsel to help churches get out of their contracts with the denomination (for example, though a congregation pays for building their church, the denomination owns it).
The big questions:
First: Will the WCA pull the moderates to their side? Over the last few decades and quite a bit through the last six years the conservatives have been building a parallel structure of of publishers, seminaries, and missionaries outside the control of the bishops and denomination agencies. At the same time they have been claiming a minority, persecuted status, especially claiming persecution by the bishops. And moderates have fallen for it.
Second: If the conservative resolution passes, what will progressives do? Will they prize “unity” over principle (which LGBTQ people feel has been happening for at least a decade) and leave us under restrictions at least as bad as what we have now? Or will progressives demand a split?
Rev. Smith notes there are three things at the center of the denomination’s current crisis:
1. A failure to develop a robust sexual ethic (mostly around LGBTQ people).
2. A failure to include minority perspectives and promote diversity.
3. A failure to play fair with the processes created by General Conference to resolve 1 and 2.
All three failures are from the efforts of various conservative groups. Rev. Smith describes it as conservatives creating a crisis and then selling the only solution to the crisis. Instead of offering a Way Forward they are pushing for a Way Out.
Much of this wrangling of the national and global denomination is of intense interest to me because the lives of fellow LGBTQ people are affected by these decisions. But, as I’ve said before, it doesn’t really affect what I will do until it affects my local church.
My local church is doing wonderful work. They promote diversity and inclusion (though they haven’t been very loud about the gay welcome lately). I feel pretty good about attending.
The General Conference decisions, in either direction, may have no impact on my local congregation. But there could be a very big impact.
* A schism may leave either or both sides with insufficient financial resources and the denomination collapses.
* The conservative side wins and demands each church crack down on their LGBTQ members. In the last two GCs harsher rules were avoided mostly by avoiding votes on them.
* The WCA entices congregations to join them or demands each congregation choose. My congregation votes on the issue and is split by it, resulting on harsh feelings all around – not good for building an institution that’s supposed to be built on love and inclusion.
We know their intentions. Do we have the time and influence to shape the outcome?
Monday, February 12, 2018
Truth and Reconciliation film
Back in 2014 Rev. Ed Rowe of the big United Methodist Church in downtown Detroit officiated at the wedding of a lesbian couple. He did it because he was the pastor of his entire congregation, even though same-sex weddings are against the denomination’s governing document, the *Book of Discipline*. A complaint was filed against Rowe. The complaint came from allies to undermine any complaint from opponents who might call for a trial and removal, even though Rowe was within a month of retirement. The resolution to this complaint was the agreement that Rowe would create a documentary film about the harm that denomination policies are causing. This would be reconciliation, not punishment.
After 3½ years the film is ready. I saw it yesterday.
The team narrowed its focus to the harm caused to gay and lesbian pastors. Even so, they filmed 15 hours of testimony. They chose 55 minutes to include in their film. It will soon be online. Look for Truth and Reconciliation Discernment.
If we as a denomination are to be in ministry with LGBTQIA people we need to hear their voices.
The film’s onscreen host was Jerry Peterson, Executive Director of the Ruth Ellis Center. The center provides services and a meeting space for LGBTQIA youth of the Detroit area, many of whom are kicked out of their homes because of religious doctrine. Because of that the Center has incorporated the principles of the Family Acceptance Project. More on this later.
The film features six people. One is a pastor who is also the mother of a transgender child. The child lamented not being able to have a wedding in Mom’s church. Another person is the father of a lesbian who feels the call to be a pastor but can’t do it in the United Methodist Church. Not only are these policies throwing out lots of wonderful candidates, there are dozens more who know not to apply.
The other four are gay and lesbian pastors who share the difficulties they faced. Most of the time was given to Louise Ott and Davita McCallister. Both shared how hard it was to be a pastor while being closeted. Ott said she could not assure people they would be welcome in her church when she was not fully welcome and had to maintain barriers to her true self.
After the film Peterson was there to host the discussion. First, we talked with those at our own table, then Peterson opened up the discussion to the whole group about how we might reduce harm within our churches. One idea that Peterson suggested is to use the Family Acceptance Project behaviors within the congregational family.
I first heard details of the Family Acceptance Project through a presentation at the Ruth Ellis Center. It’s primary premises (backed up by stats): Gay youth do better within their families. Parents want what is best for their gay children, but may not know what to do or say to achieve that. They may believe the only way a child can succeed is to not be gay.
Here are some of the recommended behaviors:
* Don’t physically or verbally harass a child because he or she is gay.
* Include gay youth in all family activities.
* Encourage access to gay friends, events, and resources.
* Don’t say that God will punish the child.
* Don’t pressure them to act more or less masculine or feminine.
At the end Peterson, Rowe, and others shared more ideas on how to get to reconciliation.
* Get over the fear of engaging differences.
* Focus on individuals and their stories, not issues.
* Let go of the need to be right.
* When faced with opposing views say, “Help me to understand. Why do you believe that? Why is that important to you?”
Rowe concluded by saying he is done proof-texting – arguing over what the Bible says. Instead, he focuses on loving the person. We are to do the same.
After 3½ years the film is ready. I saw it yesterday.
The team narrowed its focus to the harm caused to gay and lesbian pastors. Even so, they filmed 15 hours of testimony. They chose 55 minutes to include in their film. It will soon be online. Look for Truth and Reconciliation Discernment.
If we as a denomination are to be in ministry with LGBTQIA people we need to hear their voices.
The film’s onscreen host was Jerry Peterson, Executive Director of the Ruth Ellis Center. The center provides services and a meeting space for LGBTQIA youth of the Detroit area, many of whom are kicked out of their homes because of religious doctrine. Because of that the Center has incorporated the principles of the Family Acceptance Project. More on this later.
The film features six people. One is a pastor who is also the mother of a transgender child. The child lamented not being able to have a wedding in Mom’s church. Another person is the father of a lesbian who feels the call to be a pastor but can’t do it in the United Methodist Church. Not only are these policies throwing out lots of wonderful candidates, there are dozens more who know not to apply.
The other four are gay and lesbian pastors who share the difficulties they faced. Most of the time was given to Louise Ott and Davita McCallister. Both shared how hard it was to be a pastor while being closeted. Ott said she could not assure people they would be welcome in her church when she was not fully welcome and had to maintain barriers to her true self.
After the film Peterson was there to host the discussion. First, we talked with those at our own table, then Peterson opened up the discussion to the whole group about how we might reduce harm within our churches. One idea that Peterson suggested is to use the Family Acceptance Project behaviors within the congregational family.
I first heard details of the Family Acceptance Project through a presentation at the Ruth Ellis Center. It’s primary premises (backed up by stats): Gay youth do better within their families. Parents want what is best for their gay children, but may not know what to do or say to achieve that. They may believe the only way a child can succeed is to not be gay.
Here are some of the recommended behaviors:
* Don’t physically or verbally harass a child because he or she is gay.
* Include gay youth in all family activities.
* Encourage access to gay friends, events, and resources.
* Don’t say that God will punish the child.
* Don’t pressure them to act more or less masculine or feminine.
At the end Peterson, Rowe, and others shared more ideas on how to get to reconciliation.
* Get over the fear of engaging differences.
* Focus on individuals and their stories, not issues.
* Let go of the need to be right.
* When faced with opposing views say, “Help me to understand. Why do you believe that? Why is that important to you?”
Rowe concluded by saying he is done proof-texting – arguing over what the Bible says. Instead, he focuses on loving the person. We are to do the same.
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
Program February 11
The Dedicated Reconciling United Methodist (DRUM) event for February will be something different. We will be joining our colleagues for a showing of the...
Truth and Reconciliation Documentary
Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 3:00
Hope United Methodist church
26275 Northwestern Hwy
Southfield, MI 48075
The afternoon will start with fellowship time and introductions. The film will be about an hour and will be followed by a Q&A session. The program will conclude at about 6:00.
In 2014 Rev. Ed Rowe was charged with officiating at the same-sex wedding of his daughter. The just resolution of the case was that he would create a film about the harm that United Methodist Church policies were inflicting on LGBT clergy candidates and lay members. That film is now ready to be shown. Since LGBT issues are a significant part of next year's called General Conference this film is a timely contribution to the discussion.
Hope UMC is in the triangle formed by Northwestern Hwy, Lahser Rd, and Civic Center Drive.
Truth and Reconciliation Documentary
Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 3:00
Hope United Methodist church
26275 Northwestern Hwy
Southfield, MI 48075
The afternoon will start with fellowship time and introductions. The film will be about an hour and will be followed by a Q&A session. The program will conclude at about 6:00.
In 2014 Rev. Ed Rowe was charged with officiating at the same-sex wedding of his daughter. The just resolution of the case was that he would create a film about the harm that United Methodist Church policies were inflicting on LGBT clergy candidates and lay members. That film is now ready to be shown. Since LGBT issues are a significant part of next year's called General Conference this film is a timely contribution to the discussion.
Hope UMC is in the triangle formed by Northwestern Hwy, Lahser Rd, and Civic Center Drive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)