Reconciling Ministries Network

Hate Begins At Home: 1. Making Enemies

by Peter L. DeGroote

I am again puzzling over how the church got into the business of judging some people as inferior, unworthy, as not fully human. I have puzzled over this before—it seems to come in 5-year cycles.

This process of judging got started in the early church,  contrary to Jesus’ teachings about not judging. Getting a little closer to our own time, the following is a list of groups that much of the church has viewed as inferior, unworthy, sinful, or not fully human during the past couple of centuries. 

• Those not of white European origin.
• People in interracial marriages and their children.
• Jews
• Women, more recently add Feminists
• Gays and lesbians.
• Those who disagree with the churches judgment. 
• (You might add more but the above makes the point.)

Energy in support of the list remains, although waning for some. I once had a KKK member visit the parsonage in order to tell me they were defending traditional Christianity; an argument that continues to be used against women and Jews as well. An appeal to tradition glosses over a multitude of sins. Gay and lesbian behavior is the most recent addition to the list. 

Over the years these groups have been the most common targets of what we now call hate crimes. The judgment of the church has given permission for those hate crimes. I am weary of religious leaders who demean and defame whole groups of people in their speaking and writing and then deny any responsibility for the violence their words have triggered. More, I am offended by those who have recently claimed that in their condemnation of gay and lesbian people they speak for God—it is so easy to be a Christian without being a follower of Jesus.

Jesus told us to pray for and try to reconcile with our enemies. Consequently, the church has seldom called these groups of people their enemies, but that is precisely what they have been. As enemies, their rights, roles and privileges both inside the Church and in society have been proscribed, to say the least. In short, the Church has been an oppressor. I am reminded that reaching out to those oppressed by a religious establishment that judged them unworthy was at the core of Jesus’ ministry.

By definition, oppression creates enmity. That enmity is produced by and produces fear, anger, hostility and resentment within both the oppressed and the oppressor. These feelings are capable of spilling over into rage and violence.

These things have happened in our church homes. We need to face the fact that these judgments ultimately produce hatred. Hate is a like a virus. We cannot attack only a portion of a virus, thinking we will just retain our favorite little strain. Viruses mutate; so does hatred. It comes to attack us in other ways. We have to decide. Do we want to deal with love or with hate? There is no middle road; those two roads diverge in very different directions.

I remain puzzled over this tendency of both the institutional church and local churches to depart from Jesus’ teachings by dehumanizing, demonizing, and making enemies. Following are three hypotheses in the form of a question to start your thinking or a group discussion.   

• Is it in the nature of institutions to assure its members that they are superior to others?
• Does the church’s preoccupation with personal salvation require that it judge others in order to provide examples of those who do not qualify?
• Do groups (and societies) need scapegoats to blame when things go wrong?

Get a group together let the rest of us know what you think.

How does the church change its mind? Or, does it?

by Rev. Gilbert H. Caldwell

In the late 1930's The Christian Century magazine launched a series titled, "How My Mind Has Changed". I have been wondering for a number of years if the Church, the United Methodist Church in particular, has not perfected the art of "changing without changing"? What do I mean?

We know the racial history of the Methodist and the now United Methodist Church. There were discussions, debates, and disagreements about slavery that contributed to the establishment of separate Methodist denominations. Then in 1939 when the separated denominations held a "Unification Conference in Kansas City, there was the creation of a racially-segregated Central Jurisdiction that became the compromise that made possible unification. The Central Jurisdiction existed until 1968. Did the Church change its mind about the Biblical interpretation that for some justified slavery and then racial segregation?  Or, did it change without acknowledging the flaw in Biblical interpretation that justified its earlier practices?

What about Methodists ordaining women when the Bible specifically prohibits it? (First Timothy 2: 8 - 15). I remember the words that countered the prohibition against the ordination of women: We finally agreed that even as Scripture is primary, it must be "illuminated by tradition, vivified by personal experience and confirmed by reason". Then we were reminded of the Genesis story of God making female and male in God's image and the expectation that they work in harmonious partnership. Further, despite the words in First Timothy, we agreed that we must remember the Old Testament call for justice, and the fact that Jesus had women as friends, disciples and witnesses. If this method of understanding Scripture was appropriate enough to transcend the words in First Timothy that provided rationale for the opponents of the ordination of women,  why do we limit their appropriateness on other matters?

There was a time when divorced clergy were viewed as "unappointable" or worse. The denomination determined that Scripture was "clear" about divorce being a barrier to effective ministry and an impediment to marriage. But, in time we reached the conclusion that "when a married couple is estranged beyond reconciliation", divorce becomes an alternative. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason became helpful in response to divorce as it was in countering the prohibition against the ordination of women. The denomination "changed" but did it acknowledge that although Scripture had not changed, the denomination had?

Then there is the matter of abstinence from alcohol. The debate at the General Conference that brought about change was between those who favored continuing the Methodist policy of total abstinence and those who wanted to make it a matter for individual choice. Although it is suggested that United Methodists consider seriously the claims of total abstinence, the decision to drink is to made by the individual and not by "authoritarian attitudes." I have discovered that my memory at 74 is more fragile and less clear than it once was. I seem to remember that at one point I read following the General Conference decision these words of caution directed toward clergy, "alcohol can be consumed by ministers in their own homes". I hope that by now the reader is beginning to understand where I am going with all of this.

The mind and the practices of the United Methodist Church on some issues changed. Yet, we have been shy about admitting that we have changed because we have fooled ourselves into believing that change is anti-Scriptural. Or, we are arrogant enough to believe that going public with the fact that we have changed, somehow weakens the power of Scripture. If, rather than believing in a literal Bible, we believe in a living Bible, we have no need to worry.

I am hopeful that we as a United Methodist Church are on the brink of changing our negative and punitive Book of Discipline declarations about the practice of homosexuality "being incompatible with Christian teaching." Already state after state is acknowledging the rights of same gender couples to make public and legal commitments to each other.

My hope and prayer is that the United Methodist Church will change its mind, rather than allowing the state to lead when we should have led.

Methodists Don't Play Cards

by Will Green

This last week many of us were studying the story of the Israelites' oppression in Egypt. God turned my heart to remembering newcomers in the United States, God's people who aren't documented by our government.

At Northeastern Jurisdictional Conference one of my friends asked us what we were going to do as a Conference about undocumented people whom God has called to ordained ministry in our church. I suppose I'll blame the fact that I'm on white for the fact that I never considered this possibility before. But I'll also give credit to the fact that I'm gay for the instant appreciation and solidarity I felt once she said this.

As the king of Egypt in the Exodus story showed, there is a very small distance between thinking that someone doesn't have the right to exist in your land and thinking they don't have the right to exist at all. Oppressive policies lead very quickly to extermination. Hurting leads to death. So I'm fearing for the very lives of people who are subject to persecution because of their land of origin or path to this country.  And I'm fearing for the total safety of people facing any type of persecution.

Like the Exodus story, brave solidarity will save us. Solidarity like the maidens, the mothers, the sisters, the midwives and Pharaoh's daughter showed to the Israelites. The women showed it to the Israelite boys because they knew what it was like to be at the margins. They also probably knew what it was like not to have anyone stand up for them.

So they drew Moses out of the water.

Now I'm praying that God herself will draw me out of the waters. Draw me out of the waters of racism and xenophobia, draw me out of the waters of isolation from others, draw me out of the waters that make me afraid of being accused of 'playing a race card.'

Methodists don't play cards. We're too busy doing God's work.

Fight Homophobia. Fight AIDS.

The following article titled, "AIDS in a Christian Nation", ties together Dr. Pamela Lightsey's post, "Pandemic: HIV/AIDS Among African Americans" and Tuesday's post, "Gay in Uganda". Kelly Jean Cogswell writes:

We now have 600,000 HIV positive African Americans, with up to 30,000 becoming infected each year. The Black Institute on AIDS has said that if they were considered as a nation, a Black Nation, they'd rank 16th hardest hit in the world, more than Botswana, Ethiopia, Guyana, Haiti, Namibia, Rwanda, or Vietnam, which all receive US funds for HIV/AIDS programs. That would place Black Gay Nation at numero uno with a 50 percent infection rate. Botswana, after all, is only near 39 percent.

Full story:
AIDS in a Christian Nation

Openly gay candidate for bishop

by Heather Murphy

This story slipped past me while I was traveling in July, but I wanted to note it.  Reverend Frank Wulf became the first openly gay candidate for bishop in the Western Jurisdictional Conference this summer.  After two days, he withdrew his name after it became clear that he would not be elected. 

"To change our official stance and even advocate for that change is both harmful and subversive, not only to The United Methodist Church but to the larger global Christian church and our commitment to understanding holiness in every dimension of life," said David Parker, of the Central United Protestant Church, who I assume will never have to watch the news and wonder if the people of his state will vote to annul his marriage.

Gay in Uganda

According to The New Vision, Uganda's leading website:

President Yoweri Museveni has praised Anglican bishops for resisting homosexuality.

“I salute the Archbishop and bishops of Africa for resisting disorientation and a decadent culture, which he said was being passed by Western nations.”

Describing homosexuality as mtumbavu (Swahili for stupid), the President said: “Don’t fear, resist and do not compromise on that. It is a danger not only to the believers but to the whole of Africa. It is bad if our children become complacent and think that people who are not in order are alright.”

Museveni was speaking yesterday as chief guest at the consecration of the Rev. Canon Patrick Gidudu, as the seventh bishop of Mbale Diocese, at St Andrew’s Cathedral. “These foreigners should go and practice their nonsense elsewhere. That is the minimum demand.” Museveni donated a new Mitsubishi Pajero vehicle to the enthroned bishop.

“When I learnt that the bishop was being consecrated I thought of shoes for the bishop. Since walking is now outdated, I thought I should give him a car, which is parked outside,” he said as he handed the keys to the bishop, prompting cheers from the fully packed church.

Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi, who presided over the consecration, is spearheading a global protest against homosexuality.

A gay Ugandan wrote an anonymous Open Letter to President Yoweri Museveni. It comes after President Museveni publicly praised Anglican bishops for resisting homosexuality.

Dear Sir,

First, I would like to thank you for your inspirational leadership of our beloved country Uganda.

I am personally disappointed in your support for the Church of Uganda’s crusade against homosexuality. That is because I am a homosexual myself.  A gay Ugandan.

No. I am not a foreigner.

I am not white. Actually, my beloved dad used to infuriate me by making me cram my genealogy back ten generations of pure bred Africans.

You described us as ‘stupid’, demanded that those foreigners who are forcing this culture on us Ugandans should go and practice their nonsense elsewhere.  You intimated that we are not in order, us homosexuals.

Now, dear beloved leader, you are the elected president of all Ugandans.  Not just the good Ugandans, as you describe them.  You are the president of all of us Ugandans.  Even, homosexual Ugandans.  We know, by the constitution of the country, that you are our president.

It hurts us, a lot, to find that you, our leader, rejects us so soundly.  Saying that we are foreign puzzles us.  We are Ugandans.  Through and through.  Why do you call us foreigners, just because we are homosexual?

As for saying that homosexuality is not African, I would call upon the authority of no less a person than Archbishop Orombi, and anti-gay Pastor Ssempa.  From their mouths you will believe the fact that homosexuality was here in Uganda, even before the coming of the Christian religion.  So, if homosexual Ugandans were here in Uganda before Christianity, why are Christians insisting we homosexuals cannot be Ugandan?

When you say that we are sick,  I would advise you to actually ask medical doctors whether in truth we are.  To my knowledge, doctors concluded as far back as 1994, when you were president of the country, that we homosexuals are not sick or deranged, as you were quoted saying in the newspaper article.

Now, dear sir, when Archbishop Orombi rails against me, I can keep quiet.  His religion is an option. I may choose to leave.  Since his god does not love me, and rejects me.

But I am a Ugandan.  To be assailed by your Excellency so badly, in support of a religion which bashes me as bad is very hurtful.

I can say I am not a Christian.  According to the Archbishop, I am too much of a sinner to be that. I can also opt out of Islam.  According to the Mufti, I should be marooned on an island in Lake Victoria till I die.

But sir, I cannot stop myself from being Ugandan.

I am a Ugandan.  A simple, common, Ugandan.

I have the same problems of poverty, and corruption and others, just like all other Ugandans.  We homosexuals are a minority which will never be a majority.

For the beloved leader of my country to deny my birthright as a Ugandan, and demonise me, just because I am homosexual is something which hurts me a lot.  For His Excellency the President, despite the wealth of advice that is at his hands, to do this from ignorance of what homosexuality is, that, again, is deeply disturbing.

Sir, I am gay, and Ugandan.  I may not be a Moslem. I may not be a Christian.  But I do assert that I am a Ugandan.

You, sir, cannot reject me, because I am a Ugandan. I cannot reject my birthright, nor deny it. I am a Ugandan who is gay. And I am happy that I know that there is no problem with that.

I would like to invite your Excellency to study a little bit about homosexuality, so that you are not led in error by religious leaders’ condemnation of us as human beings.

We are deeply hurt by all that they say, but are more hurt when our country rejects us for what we are, and when our country mates do so.  We are hurt when our beloved President does the same, just to help the very strong church in its moral crusade.  We accept that we may not be good enough to be in the church or mosque.  But if we are denied our birthright as Ugandans, that is more hurtful, more galling.

Please your Excellency, do not bash us like so, and out of ignorance.  We are just a bit different. Homosexual, yes; Gay, yes, but we are still Ugandans.

Yours sincerely,

A Gay Ugandan

(Name withheld)

Additional Coverage:

Ugandan police accused of torturing gay activist (July 28, 2008)
 

Flip-Flopping

by Laura Young

We hear a lot about flip-flopping during political campaigns and the term jumped out at me during yesterday’s sermon. 

First of all, let me say that I’m a big fan of Marcus Borg and have been fortunate enough to hear him lecture on quite a few occasions.  He often provides handouts to accompany his lectures and tells his audiences to “borrow [his material] shamelessly”.   I’m about to “borrow shamelessly” the core message from yesterday’s sermon and throw in a Dr. Phil quote as well – free of charge. 

The lectionary text was Matthew 15: 21-28.  This is the story of the Canaanite woman who comes to Jesus asking him to heal her daughter from demon possession.  Part of their exchange includes Jesus saying to her, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”  Remember that one?  We studied the story from a perspective that was brand new to me.  Jesus first showing some cultural and religious prejudice (Yikes!) and then allowing his mind to be changed!?  (Hmmm)  Could Jesus be accused of flip-flopping?  Is this a bad thing?  The sermon unpacked all the cultural and religious traditions out of which Jesus had initially responded, but I can’t reproduce that part.  (I missed half of it because I was making modern day comparisons in my head.)  Yes, we have stories of politicians flip-flopping for all the wrong reasons, but what about when a person flip-flops because they now know more and their heart has changed?  Dr. Phil has been quoted saying, “we do the best we can with the information we have at the time.”  Makes sense to me. 

On one hand, this is a very risky biblical story because the “captain of our faith” who emerges from it produces a disorienting effect.  Jesus showing cultural and religious prejudice?  (We certainly aren’t willing to say that Jesus is prejudice.)  On the other hand, anyone willing to take the risk, and leave the story fully intact - not giving in to temptation to rescue Jesus by reading all sorts of redeeming excuses into the story, but allowing the story to have its full disarming effect, can find rare help for overcoming one of the most difficult obstacles we face as people of faith . . . prejudice that seems to be required by our faith.

A disturbing amount of human prejudice is supported by various interpretations of scripture.  The abandonment of prejudice, the crossing of traditional boundaries, is the good news of this story and maybe the very reason it was told.  It is hard not to draw the conclusion that Jesus, himself, felt challenged, was willing to learn and then made a transition. 

But isn’t that what good leaders do?  They aren’t prideful or stubborn, sticking to a belief for a lifetime over and above all new insight and information to the contrary.  Good leaders are perpetual learners and sometimes that means flip-flopping.  I think this story might provide a rare biblical road map for faithful people who are struggling to let go of old traditional prejudices that seem to be required by their faith.  It seems to me that Jesus might be giving us a wonderful example of how even a divine human being continues to learn and grow.  It seems to me that Christ himself is showing us how to embrace new insight and delight in our “A-ha” moments.  When faced with the decision to either continue cultural and religious prejudices or love his neighbor, Jesus crossed the traditional boundary of his time and chose to love his neighbor.  I think I’ll call that “divine flip-flopping” and it gets my vote.   

Reconciliation Trumps Inclusion Every Time

By Peter L. DeGroote

Inclusion was a central concept of the “gay rights” movement of the 1960’s. We demanded inclusion in the legal systems that protect human rights; we also sought full inclusion in the political, economic, and social systems of society. A time of turmoil, other groups were doing the same and we were often as much at war with each other as with the exclusive systems.   

Being one, I use white gay men as an example: Struggling to find our own voices, we often could not hear the voices of women, African Americans, and other minorities, LGBT or not. Even when the common aspirations of the various groups were pointed out many dismissed the information. Because some found themselves leaders for the first time in their lives there was a reluctance to alter agendas for fear of diluting their position. Racism and chauvinism remained among us. Much of the thinking seemed to be based on a political calculation premised on an assumption of a limited number of places at the table that we had to fight over. It should also be said that some of these other groups seeking inclusion were opposed to including LGBT folks. Some of today’s tensions between GLBT individuals and groups go back to this time.

The introduction of the concept of reconciliation promised freedom from the competing pressures and demands for loyalty that set us against each other. Inclusiveness is a tool of reconciliation and a worthy political goal, but reconciliation leads beyond inclusion to the establishment of healthy relations. It does not assume a limited number of places at the table. Those who do come are expected to listen, to share, and to support. A theological concept, reconciliation is not universally accepted but for one seeking to be a follower of Jesus it was a welcomed gift. 

Reconciliation is often overlooked in today’s church talk even though it appears to have been the earliest explanation of how Jesus accomplished human harmony with God (atonement) For example, in Romans 5:10ff Paul describes the work of Jesus as having reconciled humanity to itself and, in so doing, with God. A missionary, Paul was also able to adapt the cultic ideas so prevalent in the ancient world to describe Jesus as a sacrifice to redeem humanity for its sinfulness. But that language is formal, mechanistic, and legalistic, out of touch with the personal and down-to-earth teachings of Jesus.

The earliest recollections about Jesus described him in terms of personal relationships, of healing relations of enmity and brokenness, and of having been led to a reconciliation with God through reconciliation with others. Included were revolutionary new ways to treat and think about those who would be one's enemies. The later language of sacrifice/redemption created enemies of dissenters and excluded those who did not measure up to developing standards of belief and practice. The language of reconciliation does not accommodate enmity nor does it lend itself to rigid religious standards because it is based on Jesus’ foundation principle: The love of God and others.

So, as challenging as it is to pursue, I found that, as a goal, reconciliation trumps inclusion every time.

Surely the Lord is in this place - and I did not know it!

by Rev. Gilbert H. Caldwell

This morning (July 20, 2008) I attended "Holy Eucharist at ten o'clock" at Trinity Episcopal Church in Asbury Park, NJ. The church is located a block away from First United Methodist Church where until June 29th I was an Associate Pastor. I attended the service because a well know Jazz Saxophonist was providing special music.He and his saxophone made something "special" of our hearing and singing, When the Saints Go Marching In, Precious Lord, and Let Us Break Bread Together. It was a great service!

But, I went for another reason. Just recently, I heard some United Methodists who disagree with the ban on civil unions made by the Trustees of nearby Ocean Grove, who said that when they attended Trinity, they were amazed and impressed by the inclusivity of all kinds at the church. First UMC Asbury Park has in the front of the sanctuary the sign that proclaims the "Open" theme/pr campaign of United Methodism. Trinity Episcopal Church from pew to pulpit, lives "openness". I, after the actions of General Conference and my own recent experiences with some United Methodists in this community, needed to attend the service.

How refreshingly liberating it is to attend a worship service where Gay persons, lay and clergy, do not have their worship life hindered by an awareness of the "incompatible" declarations of several United Methodist General Conferences. How does one worship in a church of a denomination that declares they are of "sacred worth" but if they are in the pulpit and open about their same gender love, they must wonder when or if someone will file "charges"? And, if they are Gay or Lesbian lay persons, they know the pain and agony of their same gender loving clergy colleagues who must live lives that are less-than-open.

As the lesson from the Hebrew Bible was read; (Genesis 28: 10-19a) in the service, these words "jumped out" at me: "Then Jacob woke from his sleep and said, 'Surely the Lord is in this place - and I did not know it!' And he was afraid, and said, 'How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.'"

There is in Jackson, Mississippi a United Methodist Church that during the days of legal and cultural racial segregation had a church policy that read; "It is not un-Christian that we prefer to remain an all white congregation. The practice of the separation of the races in Galloway Memorial Church is a time honored tradition." (1964). Is it too much of a stretch to link our current United Methodist ban on same gender loving clergy to the racially exclusive policy of that Church in Mississippi?

Sadly, there are some United Methodists who have shaped the legislation of our denomination who have not yet awakened from from their anti-homosexuality sleep. If they awakened and attended Trinity Church in Asbury Park, or those United Methodists Churches that despite the legislation of our denomination, are open about their openness, they could say with Jacob, "Surely the Lord is in this place - and I did not know it!"

A Quick Question about the Quiet Quelling of "Queer"

by Leland Spencer

I literally spend hours thinking of these alliterations, and they're getting worse and worse. Maybe next time I'll try for a rhyming title.

Seriously, though, I wanted to devote a post to (re)-introducing to the readers and writers of this blogging community the idea of using the word "queer" in the Reconciling Movement. If you go to the RMN Homepage and do a search for the word "queer," you won't find it.

The word is complex, to be sure. In the work I have done with the Cincinnati Chapter of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network), the GLSEN talking points suggest the use of the acronym LGBTQ. In one session I did with high school students, they asked about the letters, and when I got to the Q, I explained that it can stand for both questioning and queer.

Immediately, a 14-year-old student made a face and said, "I thought that was a derogatory term." I did my best to explain in a way a 14-year-old would understand that the word has largely been reclaimed to be a more inclusive term that covers any identity or orientation not within the narrow confines of heteronormativity. The student's once uncomfortable face turned into one of budding understanding.

I had a similar conversation with one of my colleagues at the University of Cincinnati. "Isn't queer a slur? Won't I offend people if I use it?" I realized then that the reclaiming of the word "queer" is anything but universally understood. My colleague, a decade older than the high school student, had the same question. I imagine a lot of people across many generations wonder the same thing. It is not uncommon for people to bristle when they hear the word "queer."

In many parts of the LGBT community, though, "queer" is the preferred term because it is more inclusive than the 4-letter acronym and it precludes the necessity of adding an unending string of letters to the acronym to make it more complete (a problem to which Don's earlier post humorously alluded). For example, some schools use the term "Queer Alliance" (or some variant) rather than "Gay Straight Alliance" or any permutation that includes an acronym (here are some examples). At some universities, students can major in Queer Studies (two examples).

Herein, I have avoided considering a history of the word and how it developed. All I have done is presented a couple of perspectives about the use of the word. On the one hand, it can be confusing and perhaps offensive. On the other hand, it can be understood as more inclusive of the full range of God's creativity in the crafting of humankind.

I admit that I am not an expert on this word, and I admit that I do not know as much about it as I should. As a movement, I am not sure we are any better informed than I am as an individual.

Therefore, I issue this challenge to the Board of Directors of RMN: Form a task group to study the history and uses of the word "queer," and consider in your work the potential benefits and risks of incorporating the word "queer" into the mission and vision of RMN as well as in its events and publications. In due time, make a recommendation to the board about the use or non-use of the word.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I know silence isn't it.