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.

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.

Fall Potluck and Program, November 12

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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?