(Cross posted from Called to Witness)
Lynn Oliver, Lay Speaker
Monrovia UMC
Monrovia, Indiana
April 19, 2009
When “the church” began, recorded in Acts, people gathered for worship in homes and they prayed. They took care of widows and orphans. It was pretty simple. I don’t think Jesus could have envisioned a church with the politics and structure we see today. And I am pretty sure he would not be too happy with some of the policies we created.
Would Jesus turn anyone away from his church? We know from scripture that Jesus intentionally sought out those who are disenfranchised, set apart from society: Samaritans, tax collectors, the disabled, the poor, Roman soldiers, lepers, and women. Scripture is full of examples of Jesus’ wonderful example of inclusive love. He sought to draw in to his love all people. He didn’t ask their politics, he didn’t ask if they had one mother or two. He didn’t judge them by their gender, or look at the color of their skin, hair or eyes. He knew all about the woman at the well and it didn’t matter, He offered her the living water.
God spoke to Peter in Acts chapter 10, verse 15 and said, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” How can we do any less? How can we simple, fragile sinners (and we all are sinners) decide who can belong to His church, and who cannot?
John Wesley, the founder of our denomination strongly opposed slavery. When he sent Francis Asbury and Thomas Coke to America in the 1700’s, he instructed them that membership in the church was open to all believers: white, black, free and slaves.
The new American Methodists tried to follow Wesley in opposition of slavery, but society at that time was rampant with racial inequality. The pages of our history books have far too many examples of the inequality experienced in our church: blacks being forced to sit in the gallery of a church in Philadelphia, blacks in New York City only able to take communion after whites were finished. It should be no surprise that blacks started their own denominations apart from the Methodist church, ones that still exist to this day. During the Civil War, conferences in the south split from the Methodist Church completely over the issue of slavery.
Look what happened in the 1930’s when the newly formed Methodist Church organized into five geographic regions, adding a central jurisdiction encompassing all Black conferences, regardless of where they were located.
“The Central Jurisdiction was a compromise,” said William McClain, a professor at Wesley Theological Seminary, Washington, and “It was a way that the church avoided integration. It was a compromise to bring the southern Methodist Church and the northern Methodist Church together and to merge them in 1939. The truth was that black people were abused, insulted and disappointed that the church was not willing to be one church.”
It wasn’t until 1968 when the United Methodist Church was formed that we began to dismantle the central jurisdiction, a process that took eight years. It wasn’t until 2000 when a special “act of repentance for racism” service was held with our brothers and sisters in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, CME and the AME Zion.
Finally, we as a church could admit the shame of actions and seek forgiveness from those we harmed. We could put this discrimination behind us.
Sadly, our Church has treated women only a little better than it did blacks. Now, the Church has always been open to the idea of women as clergy, and we ordained the first women pastor in the 1880’s. Society at that time was rampant with gender inequality.
It took until the 1950’s for women to have full rights to vote at annual and general conference. It is just a little over 50 years since women stopped being treated as second class citizens One hundred years after the first woman was ordained, a woman was elected as a Bishop. A few years after that, the first black woman became a Bishop. In 2004, the United Methodist Church celebrated, as a body, the 50th anniversary of women in full and equal standing as clergy. Finally, we as a church could admit the shame of our actions and seek forgiveness from those we harmed. We could put this discrimination behind us.
In 2004, a gay man was set apart and denied professing membership in a UMC because of his sexual orientation. Society at this time is rampant with inequality based on sexual orientation. This man sought to transfer his membership from another denomination, attended membership classes, sang in the choir. The pastor stated he would continue to be in ministry to this man but would not receive him in to the membership of that church. The District Superintendent and Bishop got involved, and ordered the pastor to receive this man, as well as any one else who would receive the vow, affirm the vow, and promise to fulfill the vows of membership – the same one you heard Kody, Michelle and Wes repeat last Sunday. When the pastor would not acquiesce the fur started flying. To make a long story short, The Board of Ordained Ministry got involved, then the Annual Conference, and finally, the Judicial Council – our equivalent of the Supreme Court.
In October 2005, the Judicial Council ruled that the 2004 Book of Discipline local pastor could make the determination of a person’s readiness to affirm the vows of membership reversed the Bishop’s order. They also ruled that certain paragraphs regarding membership are permissive and do not mandate receipt into membership of all person regardless of their willingness to affirm their membership vows.
Let me read to you exactly what the Book of Discipline states about eligibility for membership:
“The United Methodist Church is part of the holy catholic (small “c”, meaning universal) as we confess in the Apostle’s Creed. In the Church, Jesus Christ is proclaimed and professed as Lord and Savior. All people may attend its worship services, (may) participate in its programs, (may) receive the sacraments and (may) become members in any local church in the connection….”
That permissive word is “may.” Here is where the judges got it all wrong when they supported the local pastor’s right to deny membership. In their decision they were really saying “may” also leaves the option of “may not.” To get it right, they should have changed the permissive word “may” to “shall.”
One judge wrote, in his dissenting opinion of that ruling that the decision now condones the denial of the fellowship of the church to persons in need of its ministry and guidance who are homosexual. Judge Jon Gray wrote that “the decision eviscerates our statement that God’s grace is available to all and reduces it to an empty platitude. Judge Gray believes that the permissive “may” language does not give clergy with the power or authority to erect a bar to membership.
Let’s go back to that definition of eligibility. It read that “all people…” Look at First Corinthians 9, verse 22, in which Paul tells the people of Corinth that as an apostle “I have become all things to all people so that by all means possible I might save some.” I am sure Paul didn’t mean that literally he was all things to all people. I think the keyword here is all. All people. All people are worthy of God’s love and share in God’s ministry through his Son, Jesus Christ. All means all.
Another part of the definition of eligibility is that ALL persons, upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith and relationship in Jesus Christ, shall be eligible to become professing members. Pastors still need to know that a prospective member professes that Jesus is Lord and Savior before allowing anyone to join. Gordon wrote this to me: just because I may be eligible for the NFL draft, doesn’t mean I am going to get drafted. I may be eligible for church membership, but that doesn’t make it automatic.” Gordon is right. Gordon would not have allowed our confirmands to join the church if they were unable to profess Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
In Acts 8:26-39 we know that shortly after Jesus’ death, the inclusivity of the new Christian church was confronted by its first test case. The controversy concerned Philip’s baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch. Some people were outraged that Philip had violated the scriptures and tradition by baptizing someone to be considered to be sexually abnormal and outside the faith community. Philip’s defense was that he acted in the spirit of Christ: this Ethiopian eunuch, he said, loved God and desired to live a just and faithful life. Philip believed that all meant all. If baptized persons are barred from professing membership, they remain members of the universal church of Jesus Christ, marked with the sign of the cross. And sealed by the Holy Spirit, yet not qualified to be United Methodists? That just doesn’t make sense.
In May 2008, in a compassionate response to Judicial Decision 1032, the General Conference, passed a petition to amend Paragraph IV, Article IV of the Constitution of the church. This constitutional amendment would extend membership to all persons and deny discrimination of any kind. That permissive “may” will become “shall.” No longer would pastors determine who can and cannot join as members as long as they meet the definition of a professing member.
In our bulletin you have a half sheet of paper with the constitutional amendment. Currently, the list of those protected against discrimination in our Constitution leaves out key groups of people. These are the lines at the end that are stricken out in the proposed amendment. You know, you know (second for emphasis) that when lists are made inevitably someone is left out. What groups do you notice are missing from the list? (women/gender, youth/elderly, disabled)
The proposed amendment ensures that NO group would be left out in the future by eliminating the restrictive list altogether. This is not just about one group of people. This is not a gay/lesbian issue. This is about the whole church. I have said before, from this very pulpit, that if it is homosexuals are denied membership today, tomorrow who will it be? Single mothers? Divorced people? The disabled? Republicans?
We know from scripture that the Church is Christ’s body on earth. Colossians 1:24 reads “…for the sake of Christ’s body which is the church.” Then in Ephesians 5:30, “For we a members of Christ’s body, of Christ’s flesh and bones. As such, to be the true body of Christ, ALL members must be welcomed, affirmed and made a full part of the Church through inclusion and equal participation. How can we claim to be the Church when we cut off certain members from the body? How can we say all means all when certain people are left off the list? When we exclude people from full participation in the life, leadership and rites of the church, we wound Christ’s body. God calls His church to compassion, love and ministry to the entire world. God calls all people. God welcomes and embraces all people. I believe God just wants God’s church to do the same thing.
This June, when Gordon, Amy and I attend annual conference, we will vote on this constitutional amendment. Passage will require a 2/3 vote of all delegates. This is just the right thing to do. I know how I will vote.
Please don’t think that none of this pertains to you, sitting there comfortably in your pew. If this amendment does not pass, it could be your husband or wife, your son or daughter, or your grandchildren – yes, even you could be denied membership in the United Methodist Church because the local pastor disapproves of your politics, your appearance, your economic status, or, of course, your sexual orientation.
Maybe by the end annual conferences world wide voting on this amendment, we can look back and say that we as a church can finally admit the shame of our actions and seek forgiveness from ALL people we harmed. We can put the discrimination behind us.
ALL will finally mean ALL.
Reconciling Ministries Network mobilizes United Methodists of all sexual orientations and gender identities to transform our Church and world into the full expression of Christ’s inclusive love.
