RMNBlog

A New Conversation

- by Rev. Nathan E. Kirkpatrick -

In 1985, C. C. Goen published Broken Churches, Broken Nation, a slim volume with a haunting thesis. The historian contended that, as they witnessed their Christian institutions and denominations dividing over the issue of slavery, nineteenth-century Americans found permission to split the country and ultimately to wage the deadliest war in American history. Had the church been able to model constructive disagreement, Goen posits, the country could have been spared the war and its staggering toll.

There are two gifts in making these kinds of arguments. First, there is a gift to the historian. There is obviously no way to know if he is correct. There’s no running the clock back, altering a few things, and then seeing if it all plays out differently. We have the history we have from the choices that were made, and this side of Christ’s return, there is little that can be done about that. But, the second and more important gift of such arguments is the gift to community. These kinds of claims challenge us to think more carefully about the choices we make today. It is impossible to know whether the Civil War could have been averted if churches could have found ways of maintaining a common life, but as discussions and disagreements of the wider society find expression in the life of the church, it is crucial that we consider how we disagree because it is a witness to the world.

Much is still being written about the actions, inactions and reactions of the Tampa General Conference. (Probably much will still be being written about Tampa when we gather in Portland.) One common word I have heard in the descriptions of General Conference was fatigue – and not just the physical weariness of the individuals present but the emotional and spiritual exhaustion of the body as a whole. More than one person has observed how individual fatigue was merely symptomatic of the denomination’s languor. We have grown weary. We have grown weary of conversation with one another, however holy we claim it is, and when we are weary of talking with one another, it is easy to stop talking and to start taking ideas of fracture seriously (such as those already appearing in the blogosphere and in United Methodist publications).

Rather than cease conversation and begin planning for an amicable divorce, it is time for our conversation around our disagreements to evolve. Parker Palmer writes in his Healing the Heart of Democracy that communities must learn to hold tension in creative, constructive and ultimately life-giving ways. Few would say that we in the United Methodist Church can hold our disagreements so generatively, but for the life and health of the body, it is time we learn how to do so.

So here are two modest proposals for the quadrennium before we gather in Portland.

First, we must forgive General Conference for being what it is. We can dress it up with worship. We can preach at it, baptize at it even. We can sing a hymn at it and pray before every vote. But, General Conference is a legislative assembly. We can break its days up with sessions of holy conferencing. We can interrupt its flow with service. We can offer lectures by the most engaging and thoughtful scholars and preachers around. But, it’s still just a legislative assembly, and legislative assemblies are political gatherings by nature. So, let’s forgive it for not living up to our unreasonable expectations. Sure, let’s grieve its manifold failings; let’s call it to be more, but let’s also extend it some grace for the limitations of its being.

Second, let’s come to terms with the fact that General Conference cannot and will not be the place for generative conversation that heals the heart of our church, and so, let us work to begin an alternative place of conversation within the denomination about issues that matter too much to our common life to be entrusted to legislation. In my judgment, this conversation could best be had in the style of the truth and reconciliation processes experienced in South Africa, in Greensboro, North Carolina, and in other communities around the globe. This would mean that the church would need to create a sanctuary of safety where the hurt caused by the church can be heard and met by the healing of grace. It would look like creating a place of trust where persons who feel estranged from the body can again find themselves incorporated in it. It would look like engaging in lament and praise where the weary can find rest and the church can hold both justice and Jesus dear.

As the Goen book demonstrates, though, the church has not been good about creating alternative conversations in this country. The divides of society have manifested themselves in the fracturing of our internal life. May whatever common fatigue we feel be overcome by grace so that we might risk finding ourselves as part of a new conversation. There may be more dependent upon that than we would like to believe.

. . .

Rev. Nathan E. Kirkpatrick is an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church. He served the Asbury-Longtown charge in Hamptonville, N.C., before joining the staff at Duke Divinity School. Kirkpatrick directs the Duke Course of Study in partnership with the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry of the United Methodist Church, as well as leading Courage to Serve, the Institute of Preaching and other learning events for pastoral leaders. Kirkpatrick is a graduate of Wake Forest University and Duke Divinity School.

You Are Profoundly Wrong! A Response to the Archbishop of Newark and Other Catholic Leaders

- by Bishop John Shelby Spong - 

http://johnshelbyspong.com/2012/10/25/you-are-profoundly-wrong-a-response-to-the-archbishop-of-newark-and-other-catholic-leaders/

* * *

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Newark, the Most Reverend John J. Myers, has recently issued “A Pastoral Teaching on the Definition, Purpose and Sanctity of Marriage.”  In this document, which is clearly politically motivated, he urges “faithful Catholics” and other “men and women of goodwill” to vote against any candidate for public office who supports same-sex marriage.  He also states that “all Catholics, who support a candidate for elective office, who does not oppose same sex marriage, should consider themselves excommunicated, and should, therefore, absent themselves from the Eucharist at Catholic altars.

I have never met Archbishop Myers.  I have no reason to believe he is not a good and sincere person.  When one enters a public debate, however, especially in an attempt to elect one candidate over another, one has a responsibility to be well-informed on the issues about which one speaks.  It is not sufficient simply to appeal to the authority of the magisterium of one’s church to find support for these ideas or to quote traditional religious conclusions, as if they are still viable or are still accepted in academic and intellectual circles.  This is the Archbishop’s fatal error.  His underlying definition of homosexuality is the badly dated and all but universally rejected idea that it is “deviant,” “unnatural” or even “evil.”  His definition of human life is based on the pre-Darwinian idea that life was created perfect only to fall into “Original Sin,” which then distorted humanity’s original perfection, thus justifying the negativity toward homosexuality because it is an expression of that distortion.  Darwin’s thought, which today underlies all science and is the basis of teaching in every medical school in the developed world, has also been validated by the discovery of DNA. That idea can hardly be dismissed because it is inconvenient to one’s religious doctrines.  Darwin teaches us that there never was a time of human perfection, but that we have always been evolving into our humanity.  We are, therefore, not fallen sinners, but rather incomplete human beings.  To talk, about how God established monogamous heterosexuality as the basis for all family life at the time of creation, which means that it cannot be validly set aside by any government or political decision, is to engage in pious nonsense.  It also reveals a lack of knowledge about and understanding of the last two hundred years of biblical scholarship.  To go on from that weak premise to liken homosexuality to incest and to use this argument to buttress other positions of the Roman Catholic Church, including opposition to all forms of contraception and family planning; opposition to abortion under any circumstances, including rape, incest and the threat to the life of the mother; opposition to any end of life conversations or procedures, as well as opposition to the full acceptance of gay and lesbian people as violations of God’s natural law is, quite frankly, breathtaking in both its gall and its arrogance.

Let me try to unravel this maze of incoherent conclusions.  Did God set monogamous coupling as the original basic building block of all human society in the creation story of the book of Genesis? Of course not!  Does the good archbishop not know that the “seven-day” creation story of Genesis 1:1-2:4a is a product of the 6^th century BCE?  Does he not know that the story of the “fall,” as related in Genesis 2:4b-24 is the product of the 10^th century BCE?  Neither of these times is anywhere close to the beginning of human history.  Human-like creatures, called hominids, have populated this planet for at least 4,000,000 years, and self-conscious, language-using, recognizably human creatures have been on this planet, according to the best scientific estimates for somewhere between 100,000 and 250,000 years.  The biblical story of creation is, thus, very recent, relatively speaking. In most of human history monogamous marriage between one man and one woman was all but unknown. The original pattern of human “marriage” and family life appears to have been polygamy and harems.  Since women were largely regarded as property in that period of time, the number of wives a man had determined his wealth and status.  A vestigial reminder of this value system is preserved in church marriage ceremonies, when one man, the father, gives the bride away to another man, the husband, as if she were a possession. When the early writers of the Bible sought to describe this period of their own Hebrew ancestry, they quite accurately portrayed their forebears, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as polygamous people.  Even the ultimate Jewish hero, King David, who was called “the man after God’s own heart,” was portrayed as the husband of many wives. His son, Solomon, in whose reign the Adam and Eve story was actually written, was famous for having had 300 wives and 700 concubines. So the suggestion that the monogamous, heterosexual marriage of one man to one woman is the original divine plan written into “natural law” and is, therefore the “basic building block of the social order” and thus not capable of being altered is both patently false and historically inaccurate. Marriage as a human institution has been and still is evolving from polygamy based on male supremacy to monogamy, based on sexual equality.  In the light of this understanding the ability to grant to same-sex couples the dignity and sanction of official marriage is simply another step to be welcomed in that evolution.

The prelude to that new step in the evolution of marriage is the recognition, now universally acknowledged, that homosexuality is a reality among many higher mammals.  What is present in the natural world can hardly be called “unnatural” or the result of the fall!  Because an Archbishop cannot process this new insight outside his dated and antiquated theological and ethical frame of reference does not make it “evil,” it rather reveals the limitation of knowledge present in the system on which that archbishop bases his decisions. These are the facts that need to be embraced:  No reputable scientist today supports the idea that anyone chooses his or her sexual orientation; scientific data now validates the reality that the number of homosexual people in the population is a steady, perhaps fixed, percentage among all people at all times and in all places; homosexuality cannot be cured because it is not a disease and those organizations that claim to be able to do so are fraudulent; homosexuality is not hereditary and every gay or lesbian person is presumably the child of a heterosexual union, and children born to gay men or lesbians have no higher chance of being gay or lesbian than the ratio in the population. These facts mean that the moral teaching of the church, as expressed in the “Pastoral Teaching” of the Archbishop of Newark is based on premises that are no longer viable and thus cannot with credibility be used to counter the best scientific scholarship available to the world today.

Does the Archbishop want to repeat the darker chapters of church history? Galileo was right in the 17^th century even when he was found guilty by the church of heresy.  It simply took the Roman Catholic Church some 400 more years before its leaders were able to free themselves sufficiently to open their doctrinally closed minds. Charles Darwin was also right in 1859, but it was in the 1990’s before this church could acknowledge this fact in a very tepid and limited way.

The problem is that when religious leaders issue statements, based, not on knowledge and contemporary research, but rather reflecting their comfort level inside their own closed systems of thought, all the while pretending that this is divinely revealed knowledge, they do enormous damage to people whose humanity they so badly compromise. The church supported for centuries the institution of slavery, even quoting the Bible to justify it.  The church supported second class status for women and in many places still does so to this day, once again quoting the scriptures to give this prejudice the cover of perfumed piety.  When Archbishop Myers argues, not for the equality of women, but for the “complementarity” of women, is he not doing anything other than to quote an ecclesiastical version of the old “separate but equal” argument used for so long to justify segregation?  Homosexual persons are a perfectly normal, but minority, part of the human family.  So are left-handed people, bald-headed people and red-headed people.  To call homosexual persons “deviant,” “unnatural” or “evil” is a commentary not on the gay community, but on the uninformed prejudice of the person or institution that is speaking.  The Fourth Gospel portrays Jesus as saying that his task, and thus the task of his church, is to be the giver of abundant life to all people.  Can anyone do that by calling another, who is different, “evil, deviant and unnatural?”

This “Pastoral Teaching” reaches the height of absurdity when it suggests that homosexual partners ought to seek heterosexual unions and try to make them work.  Elements in the church well into the 20^th century thought that they had to break the “unnatural” stance of being left-handed by tying the hands of left-handed children behind their backs in order to force them to be “normal.”  We now know that this was nothing but an expression of ignorance as to how the brain was organized, but it dehumanized many a left-handed child before the religious leadership got over its prejudice and began to recognize that the problem was not located in the victim that they so badly violated, but in the ignorance that fed the prejudice of the violating ones. That is exactly what is being done anew in this “Pastoral Teaching” promulgated by Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark.

Of course the Bible reflects the prejudices of antiquity toward those who are “different.” That, however, should not be used to justify the continuation of these destructive patterns. We have, over the centuries, learned to set some parts of the Bible aside when we come to new understandings of truth.  That is what is now happening in our society as a new consciousness is being forged, based upon contemporary understanding of how human values operate.  One cannot uphold ancient ignorance by pretending that one’s own prejudice is blessed by God.  That is what Archbishop Myers seeks to do.

His “Pastoral Teaching” will be ridiculed by the educated.  It will be ignored by those he calls “the faithful,” just as they today largely ignore the church’s teaching on birth control, end of life decisions and even abortion.  The sad thing is that the credibility of the church is compromised by the uninformed prejudice of its leaders and time ultimately will sweep this ignorance aside.  It will be the laity of this church who will dismiss it in their practice first.  Both the Pope and the Archbishop will someday discover that “truth,” which is not truth, cannot be imposed.  Only then will their minds be changed and apology will be appropriate for the pain their prejudice and ignorance, has caused millions, including many who are priests and bishops of their own church.

~John Shelby Spong

Read the essay online here.

Identifying as Transgender - Voices of Witness: Out of the Box (part 5)

This is part 5 of a 5 part series.

After years of planning, IntegrityUSA, in collaboration with TransEpiscopal, has created the documentary Voices of Witness: Out of the Box. "'Voices of Witness: Out of the Box' is a groundbreaking documentary giving voice to the witness of transgender people of faith courageously telling their stories of hope, healing and wholeness. Gender identity and gender expression are issues that can easily be misunderstood and cannot be wrapped up in a neat little box. So the goal of "Out of the Box" was to answer some of the most frequently asked questions. We have been blessed by a truly amazing cloud of witnesses who shared their stories and their lives with us. It has been a privilege to work with them to take this project from a dream to a reality as we offer their voices of witness to the church and to the world." -- Louise Brooks, Executive Producer

 

 

Identifying as Transgender - Voices of Witness: Out of the Box (part 4)

This is part 4 of a 5 part series.

After years of planning, IntegrityUSA, in collaboration with TransEpiscopal, has created the documentary Voices of Witness: Out of the Box. "'Voices of Witness: Out of the Box' is a groundbreaking documentary giving voice to the witness of transgender people of faith courageously telling their stories of hope, healing and wholeness. Gender identity and gender expression are issues that can easily be misunderstood and cannot be wrapped up in a neat little box. So the goal of "Out of the Box" was to answer some of the most frequently asked questions. We have been blessed by a truly amazing cloud of witnesses who shared their stories and their lives with us. It has been a privilege to work with them to take this project from a dream to a reality as we offer their voices of witness to the church and to the world." -- Louise Brooks, Executive Producer

 

                       

Identifying as Transgender - Voices of Witness: Out of the Box (part 3)

This is part 3 of a 5 part series.

After years of planning, IntegrityUSA, in collaboration with TransEpiscopal, has created the documentary Voices of Witness: Out of the Box. "'Voices of Witness: Out of the Box' is a groundbreaking documentary giving voice to the witness of transgender people of faith courageously telling their stories of hope, healing and wholeness. Gender identity and gender expression are issues that can easily be misunderstood and cannot be wrapped up in a neat little box. So the goal of "Out of the Box" was to answer some of the most frequently asked questions. We have been blessed by a truly amazing cloud of witnesses who shared their stories and their lives with us. It has been a privilege to work with them to take this project from a dream to a reality as we offer their voices of witness to the church and to the world." -- Louise Brooks, Executive Producer

 

 

Identifying as Transgender - Voices of Witness: Out of the Box (part 2)

This is part 2 of a 5 part series.

After years of planning, IntegrityUSA, in collaboration with TransEpiscopal, has created the documentary Voices of Witness: Out of the Box.  

"'Voices of Witness: Out of the Box' is a groundbreaking documentary giving voice to the witness of transgender people of faith courageously telling their stories of hope, healing and wholeness. Gender identity and gender expression are issues that can easily be misunderstood and cannot be wrapped up in a neat little box. So the goal of "Out of the Box" was to answer some of the most frequently asked questions. We have been blessed by a truly amazing cloud of witnesses who shared their stories and their lives with us. It has been a privilege to work with them to take this project from a dream to a reality as we offer their voices of witness to the church and to the world." -- Louise Brooks, Executive Producer

 

 

Identifying as Transgender - Voices of Witness: Out of the Box (part 1)

This week we will be focousing on the stories of some who identify as transgender. This is part 1 of a 5 part series.

 

After years of planning, IntegrityUSA, in collaboration with TransEpiscopal, has created the documentary Voices of Witness: Out of the Box.  

"'Voices of Witness: Out of the Box' is a groundbreaking documentary giving voice to the witness of transgender people of faith courageously telling their stories of hope, healing and wholeness. Gender identity and gender expression are issues that can easily be misunderstood and cannot be wrapped up in a neat little box. So the goal of "Out of the Box" was to answer some of the most frequently asked questions. We have been blessed by a truly amazing cloud of witnesses who shared their stories and their lives with us. It has been a privilege to work with them to take this project from a dream to a reality as we offer their voices of witness to the church and to the world." -- Louise Brooks, Executive Producer

 

 

 

LGBT on a Christian Campus

- by Artie Van Why -

Having spent my four years at a Christian college trying to hide from others, and even myself, that I was gay, it was with great personal interest that I read the May 24, 2012 online article “Underground Gay Group Emerges, Shaking Evangelical Christian College”. On the same day President Obama came out in support of same-sex marriage, a group of students announced an underground presence of a LGBT community (which included students, alumni and employees) at Biola University.

I am only one of the many gay alumni that have passed through the doors of my Alma Mater (Asbury College which is now a University). I would hope that with the school’s upgrade to being an even higher institution of learning, it has created an intellectual environment where students can voice differing opinions; where opposing viewpoints can be discussed and debated.  But, from what I have heard, the students on Asbury’s campus that identify as gay still live in secrecy and with the same fear (and possibly self-loathing) that I and so many other LGBT Asbury alumni did.

My personal focus is on Asbury because that is where I went. But I think of all the LGBT students on all the Christian campuses across the country and wonder if those campuses will ever be a safe environment for them. Who can the students who are questioning, discovering or trying to understand their same sex attractions turn to without fear of reprisals, reprimands, rejection or dismissal?

What if a student courageously comes out as gay on a Christian campus while also adhering to the school’s prohibition of being sexual active? Will their simply identifying themselves as gay be considered a sin? And if they swore to continued abstinence from sexual activity would they be left alone? Or would they be required to seek on campus counseling, even if they did not want to? And if so, would they be subjected to reparative therapy or told that, with God’s help, he or she could change their sexual orientation?

Would gay students (as well as straight ones) be permitted to decide for themselves what the scriptures say, or don’t say, about homosexuality? Do Christian colleges and universities provide an academic environment where discussion, debate and questions are welcomed and encouraged; even over the most controversial of issues? Is having a different opinion (thinking for ones’ self) discouraged?

During the four years students (gay and straight) are at these Christian schools they are just at the beginning of their adult life. Institutions of higher education should be where students are encouraged, rather than discouraged, to question and examine anything and everything; including their faith’s beliefs and doctrines. And if throughout their four years while at school they begin to redefine and reshape what they believe, coming to their own conclusions, isn’t that part of what becoming an adult is about? Do Christian schools want to send out into the world young adults who know how to think for themselves? Who have formed their individual ideas of who they are, who their God is and how that God would want them to live in this world. Or are these schools only interested in producing “cookie cutter” versions of what the school thinks their graduating students should be like?

So, I worry about the LGBT students on today’s Christian campuses. Will any of them be able to find a safe place at their schools? Will any of them be able to live their life as who they are and not hide behind a closet door? What can we do to pressure Christian schools to take their heads out of the sand and face the reality that there are gay students? To realize the many students will have a gay family member or friend. That this is much more of a prevalent, social issue then it was back when I was at Asbury in the late ‘70’s?

Across the vast spectrum of Christian thinking, there are many views on being gay and Christian. There probably always will be. Are today’s students going to be allowed to choose which view they come to believe in?

. . .

Artie Van Why, recently chose to part ways with the United Methodist Church, following General Conference 2012. After attending Asbury College in KY, Artie moved to New York City. His stage performances include Jesus in 'Godspell' and Snoopy in 'You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown'. In June of 2001, his office moved across the street from the World Trade Center. He reported to work as usual on the morning of September 11th. Artie began writing about his experience on 9/11 and the weeks that followed. Artie wrote and produced a staged reading in New York City of a play called 'That Day in September'. The reading made its debut to a sold-out crowd and was presented in many other venues. Artie now lives in Lancaster County, PA. In June 2006, Artie self-published the book version of That Day in September. Artie speaks publicly whenever given the opportunity, and his script is available for production.

Mary Ann Kaiser: Unfinished Story

-by Mary Ann Kaiser-

As a teenager I left the UMC for a hip nondenominational church where I learned, because of my gender, I was not qualified to be a minister. My youth director was kind enough to point me in the direction of 1 Corinthians 14, and there it was—women should remain silent in church. So I decided I’d marry a pastor (male, obviously) so I could sneak my way into leadership.

The next chapter led me back to the UMC where a more open-minded theology and biblical interpretation invited me to reconsider what I had come to believe about my call. It took me about two years of struggling with all I had been taught about a women’s role in the church to move past it, but thanks to a supportive home church, I managed to find my way to accepting the call I felt God placed on my life.

The UMC was a means of liberation from the sexist views I had come to accept. I then move on to my year in Nigeria and following, seminary. Seminary was a continuation of the liberation I needed. I was introduced to Feminist, Liberation, and Queer Theology. The new theological frameworks helped me grow further into my identity as a capable woman, but also as a lesbian. It was theology that helped me come out and understand myself as beloved in all aspects of my identity. In telling my story, it ends on a happy note: liberation, coming out, freedom! And then I wrap it up with a nice bow about being in my current church position as a youth director and justice associate.

There have been some serious bumps and bruises along the last few years, of course, but the way I share my story is authentic in my gratitude for what the UMC and theology have offered me. However, it didn’t hit me until I found myself in worship this Sunday reflecting on my story that I have come full circle—The UMC that freed me from sexism to pursue my call to ministry, is the very same denomination that now proclaims, I am again, unfit for ministry. Like my youth minister of old, the UMC points me to a select number of scripture verses and says, “see…it’s clear and simple.” Fortunately, I have since learned a thing or two about how to handle such proclamations.

Nonetheless, it was for me, a sad realization. I like sharing my story with the UMC being a hero of sorts in my life. It makes me proud to be a part of it. But now the UMC is one of the few mainline protestant denominations that continue to deny LGBT women and men the call God has placed on our lives. Where our denomination was once a forerunner of social change, we are now the caboose.

Fortunately, my story is not yet finished, and neither is the story of the UMC. I hope that where the UMC once freed me from living into a false understanding of God’s call on my life, I can now help, hand-in-hand with many others, to free the UMC of its current false understanding of God’s call on its own life. I eagerly await to turn, together, to a new page. 

 

. . .

Mary Ann Kaiser received her B.A. in Organizational Communication with a minor in Social Welfare from the University of West Florida. After college she spent one year living in Nigeria where she was shaped greatly by the cross-cultural experience and relationships formed. She has worked for a Wesley Foundation, as a hospital chaplain and completed an internship at WATER (Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics, and Ritual) in Silver Spring, MD. She attended Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary where she earned her M.Div. and developed a passion for exploring the intersections of church and soceity. She is an out lesbian who now works at a UMC church in Texas as Youth Director and Justice Associate. She is challenged daily to grow in openness, resolution, and kindness.

 

A Response to Bishop Coyner’s “Response to the Western Jurisdiction”

- by Anthony Fatta -

 

This blog is a response to Bishop Coyner’s “Response to the Western Jurisdiction” 

Although I have the utmost respect for the episcopal office, I cannot have respect for ecclesial criticism based upon factual inaccuracies.  What happened at the Western Jurisdictional Conference this past summer was a cry of both concern and celebration addressed to the general United Methodist Church.  There is concern in regards to the recent legislation and language retained at General Conference.  But the jurisdiction has found celebration in the fact that the Spirit of God remains active in and throughout a church that chose to uphold restrictive policies for all of God’s children.  Bishop Coyner’s response is appreciated and heard by me and I am sure by others as well, but it deserves some feedback.

 

1)  What the Western Jurisdiction did in passing “A Statement of Gospel Obedience,” was not an act of neocolonialism.  Surely, there is a hope that restrictive policies for all peoples will be eliminated in the global church, but this statement is for the Western Jurisdiction, so that we can be more fruitful in disciple-making in our mission field.  To assume that the Western Jurisdiction’s clergy and laity are flippant about issues of neocolonialism and intercultural sensitivity is simply untrue and uninformed.  I serve a local church in the heart of Silicon Valley in California.  It is one of the most ethnically and linguistically diverse communities in the entire United States.  If we want to find neocolonialism in the UMC, we only need to examine how monies are disseminated.

 

2)  “A Statement of Gospel Obedience” is an act of ecclesial disobedience, which, in my opinion, has parallels with civil disobedience.  In disregarding Par. 161F, United Methodists in the Western Jurisdiction are proclaiming that we will support and celebrate the ministries and lives of LGBT clergy and laity if we choose to do so.  There may be some who do not want to experience the consequences of such action, but there are definitely others who are willing to be put on church trial, including the risk of losing clergy credentials. Having been on the floor at General Conference during the Common Witness Coalition’s witness, I can assure you that there were plenty of people who were willing to be arrested and go to jail to obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

3)  To claim that supporters of this statement are not open to those with whom we disagree or do not prayerfully discern such decisions is also untrue.   One only needs to look at the past 40 years.  It has been that long since par. 161F has entered our Discipline.  From that time, faithful United Methodists have taken part in many an instance of holy conferencing on every level of our polity and we continue to do so.  And let me just clear another misconception: people in the Western United States DO PRAY.  We pray for our United Methodist Church, for the communities that we serve, for a hopeful tomorrow, and for so much more. 

 

Perhaps, such a statement is unconventional on a jurisdictional level, especially in our connectional polity, but it is a way to continue the conversation within the general UMC.  This is why I am glad Bishop Coyner was able to give a response and I am able to respond to it.

. . .

Anthony Fatta is the Youth Director at Los Gatos United Methodist Church in Los Gatos, CA.  Recently, he completed a Master of Divinity at Vanderbilt Divinity School.  He was a Jurisdictional Organizer with the Called to Witness campaign for two years, working with the Memphis, Kentucky, and Western North Carolina Annual Conferences.

 

Wrapping Arms Around Each Other: Bishop Sally Dyck and #DreamUMC

-by Annie MacNeal

 

What makes us “shrink” from the gospel, the Church, and from doing every good thing? That is the question Bishop Sally Dyck posed to students and professors at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary. She said that often times we want to get our arms around God so that we can define and label God and make God fit our understanding. Bishop Dyck believes that as a Global Church, as long as we have theological competency, we can have a diverse theology without shrinking the Gospel: “People have different experiences with Jesus… welcome to the Global Church… welcome to Thanksgiving dinner.”

“This is a time to really imagine what God can do in the world around us.”

Bishop Dyck gave the example of Imagine No Malaria and how small churches are making huge differences to eradicate this epidemic. When I heard this I could not stop thinking about the grassroots movement that came out of General Conference 2012...

#DreamUMC

DreamUMC started as a Twitter movement where people from all over were invited to participate in bi-monthly “tweet-chats” with guided questions challenging us to imagine what God could do with the United Methodist Church. Where is the UMC going in the future? What needs to change? What can we do to truly make disciples of Christ to transform the world?

People participating in these tweet-chats have many different ideas such as creating an inclusive church, creating more leadership opportunities for young people, being fully inclusive of the LGBTQ community, new restructuring ideas, being more connectional, taking more action on social justice issues, and much more. It is a place where all are welcome to contribute to the dreams of the future of the UMC.

Bishop Sally Dyck said it well when she stated, “The Holy Spirit makes our hearts big so we can do more than we imagine.” If you have not yet participated in the Dream UMC movement, you should try it and see how the Holy Spirit truly does move to make hearts big and to help our hearts dream for a better UMC and a better world. I will leave you with the benediction the Bishop sent us out with, “Go and be big in God and God’s grace.” Amen.

 

. . .

If you would like to get involved with Dream UMC, join a tweet-chat on the first and third Monday nights at 9pm EST by logging onto twitter.com and searching #DreamUMC. In addition, you can follow @DreamUMC on Twitter, and you can read summaries of previous chats on Dream UMC’s Facebook page and website (http://dreamumc.net/). 

 

Annie is a first year Divinity student at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary. She is a declared candidate for ministry on the elder track in The New England Conference of The United Methodist Church. Annie was a lay delegate to The 2012 General Conference.

Entertaining Angels: Holiness and the Quest for Inclusion (Part 3 of 3)

This is part 3 of a 3-part series. (Read Part 1 and Part 2)

- by Rev. Chris Corbin -

Rev. Chris Corbin is a provisional elder in the United Methodist Church from the Florida Conference currently under appointment as a doctoral student in theology at Vanderbilt University. His primary research interests relate to establishing a robust theological notion of the nature and mission of the church in the world. He is incredibly interested in ecumenical work, exploring new models of theological education, and helping to reclaim a distinctively Wesleyan way of being Christian in contemporary society.

 

If holiness is a quality that cannot be reduced to any number of specific variables in a person or relationship, a quality that eludes precise definition, a quality that grasps all those in its presence, then true holiness will always disrupt whatever artificial confines and limitations placed on it by human beings. I know that heterosexuality is not necessary for holiness because I have been given the gift of experiencing holiness in so many non-heterosexual people and relationships. It is my belief and hope that when confronted with individuals and relationships that exhibit such holiness, those who hold so tightly to the “incompatibility” between LGBTQ peoples and relationships and growth in holiness will no longer be able to hold such beliefs unquestionably. 

The answer to how those of us who support full LGBTQ inclusion in the church can hope to disrupt unwavering opposition to such inclusion is that experiences of holiness outside of heterosexual relationships will have to be made unavoidable and overwhelming. How this goal is accomplished is both incredibly simple and incredibly demanding: those who support full inclusion must seek after holiness with a zeal and passion that far outpaces the majority of those in the church today. LGBTQ people who are in the church must strive after Christian perfection in their lives and relationships to the point of so excelling the majority of those who oppose full inclusion in holiness that they are without an excuse. This exacting standard must be borne just as much by allies so that they might bear effective witness to the possibility of holiness in LGBTQ people and relationships, and so that no one can ever claim that their support for full inclusion comes out of any moral weakness or attempt at accommodating “the world.” On the one hand, such an answer to the question of how we disrupt entrenched opposition to full inclusion means expecting infinitely more of ourselves than is expected of most other people who fill our United Methodist Churches, so much so that it might seem an unfair burden has been placed upon us; on the other hand, nothing more is expected of us than that we actually live into our baptismal and membership promises, even if the majority of those around us do not. 

While I said above that I do not think that most of the time people actually change their minds on deeply held beliefs through argumentation, this does not mean that I believe that it is no longer necessary to explain through theologically and biblically sound arguments how being pro-LGBTQ does not conflict with (at least the spirit of) the Bible and our theological tradition. Such arguments might not convince people who are unwilling to even ask the question, but for those whose minds have been opened to such a possibility, such arguments hold the power to convince. Such arguments become absolutely necessary for helping people who have gone from opposition to support for LGBTQ inclusion see that such a position does not mean abandoning a deep respect for the authority of Scripture or the Christian tradition. Such arguments become vital for showing those who have nothing to do with the church or Christianity—because they have only ever known a Christianity that preaches exclusion and marginalization of LGBTQ people—that Christianity does not necessarily entail homophobia and bigotry. So, I completely affirm not only the importance of such arguments, but also the endeavor both to continue making these arguments clearer and more widely known, and to continually seeking out more theologically and biblically sound arguments. 

Ultimately, the most unsettling element of all this is not the difficulty of striving after lives of greater holiness or the task of witnessing to the holiness we have seen and heard about in others, but rather is facing the reality that there is no guarantee that our action cannot at the end of the day force anyone’s mind to be changed. Even in the face of the most world-shaking events, people still always have the freedom to become open to new possibilities or to hold that much stronger to their original beliefs. However, I am convinced that if there is any possibility for opening people to the possibility of the truth of our position, it is that we must faithfully bear witness to the truth through constantly striving for holiness and being ready to give an account if and when that witness has opened people to new possibilities.

. . .

This is part 3 of a 3-part series. (Read Part 1 and Part 2)

Entertaining Angels: Holiness and the Quest for Inclusion (Part 2 of 3)

This is part 2 of a 3-part series. Read part 1 here. Part 3 will be posted tomorrow. 

- by Rev. Chris Corbin -

Rev. Chris Corbin is a provisional elder in the United Methodist Church from the Florida Conference currently under appointment as a doctoral student in theology at Vanderbilt University. His primary research interests relate to establishing a robust theological notion of the nature and mission of the church in the world. He is incredibly interested in ecumenical work, exploring new models of theological education, and helping to reclaim a distinctively Wesleyan way of being Christian in contemporary society.

 

If I’m right that people—all people—aren’t argued out of their deeply held beliefs, but rather change their beliefs or become open to changing their beliefs as a result of experiences that upset their worldview, then we need to stop figuring out how we can best argue and begin thinking how we can best provide worldview disrupting experiences. 

By and large, I’d say that the real issue at stake in all these debates is holiness. All the questions about whether homosexuality is “compatible with Christian teaching,” or “sinful,” or “contrary to God’s plan” are really just questions about whether it is even possible for any sort of sexual practice other than (certain kinds) of heterosexual practices to be conductive to or compatible with holy living. The reason I say that this is really a question of holiness is because, at least for us Wesleyans, holiness and sinfulness are the only two states that we can occupy. One either strives for holiness through acts and thoughts that help dispose oneself towards perfectly loving God above all else and one’s neighbor as oneself, or one backslides through sinful acts and thoughts which impede one from realizing the perfect love of God and neighbor.

For the most part, those of us who favor full LGBTQ inclusion in the church would want to argue that non-heterosexual sexual practices hold just as much potential for facilitating growth in holiness or impeding it as do heterosexual practices—what matters is not the acts themselves but how and in what context they are practiced (for instance, one might argue that what makes certain sexual practices conducive to holiness is that they are part of a monogamous, faithful, loving, and mutual relationship, regardless of the sexual orientation/gender identity of the people involved). On the other hand, those who think that non-heterosexual sexual activity is sinful, and thus never conducive to growth in holiness, would claim that while heterosexual sex can be either help facilitate holiness or could be sinful, something about non-heterosexual activity necessarily prevents it from ever leading to holiness. 

What seems to need to be disrupted, then, is the assumption that the only relationships in which sex can facilitate holiness are heterosexual. So what do I mean when I say that a relationship helps facilitate growth in holiness? At the most basic level, I mean that the relationship helps all people within it to grow in holiness, that is, to grown in love of God and love of neighbor. But what exactly does this holiness look like? While I think there are probably certain characteristics that almost always accompany holy people or relationships, it is my contention that holiness is a quality that exceeds our capacity for precise definition and quantification. In all the cases of people I have known who I would call holy, I knew they were holy not because of these particular words or that particular deed, but because there was something about their whole lives, their whole beings that brought out for me my own failure to truly love God and truly love my neighbors, and that called out for me to strive all that much more to emulate their lives. Of course, while holiness itself is a quality that escapes our ability to fully comprehend and describe, it is completely understandable why such a quality would be so hard to pin down. Holiness is not really one quality among others, but is rather the way of describing how much someone’s whole being has become conformed to God. Just as God ultimately escapes our capacity for total comprehension, it would make sense that the more someone is conformed to Godlikenss, the more their being will be beyond our grasp. 

If holiness is a quality that cannot be reduced to any number of specific variables in a person or relationship, a quality that eludes precise definition, a quality that grasps all those in its presence, then true holiness will always disrupt whatever artificial confines and limitations placed on it by human beings. I know that heterosexuality is not necessary for holiness because I have been given the gift of experiencing holiness in so many non-heterosexual people and relationships. It is my belief and hope that when confronted with individuals and relationships that exhibit such holiness, those who hold so tightly to the “incompatibility” between LGBTQ peoples and relationships and growth in holiness will no longer be able to hold such beliefs unquestionably. 

. . .

 

This is part 2 of a 3-part series. Read part 1 - Read part 3 

Entertaining Angels: Holiness and the Quest for Inclusion (Part 1 of 3)

This is part 1 of a 3-part series. Parts 2 and 3 will be posted over the weekend. 

- by Rev. Chris Corbin -

Rev. Chris Corbin is a provisional elder in the United Methodist Church from the Florida Conference currently under appointment as a doctoral student in theology at Vanderbilt University. His primary research interests relate to establishing a robust theological notion of the nature and mission of the church in the world. He is incredibly interested in ecumenical work, exploring new models of theological education, and helping to reclaim a distinctively Wesleyan way of being Christian in contemporary society.

I feel I should probably begin this post with a confession. I hold a belief that, while probably not uncommon for many Christians, is often looked at as outdated, unsophisticated, and unscientific among many of my clergy and seminary educated peers.  

I believe in angels.  

Ok, so maybe I’m not ready to fully affirm that I believe in angels, but I’m at least very, very open to a spiritual realm that is not reducible to phenomena in material reality. Now, I didn’t always think this way. All throughout high school and college I tended to think of myself as sophisticated and modern in my religious belief. I believed in God, of course, but God was the only spiritual reality you’d find me entertaining. Angels and demons were relics of a pre-modern, pre-scientific, mythological worldview, and they were about as necessary or helpful for Christian belief as a literal six day creation or talking donkeys.

All of this changed about five weeks into my second semester of seminary. Being lucky enough to go to a school where faculty regularly joined the students for lunch, I had just sat down to what I as sure was going to be an incredibly intellectually stimulating conversation with Denys Turner, my medieval theology professor. As was pretty par for the course with Denys, the conversation spanned just about the whole of human knowledge, winding from Thomas Aquinas’ anthropology to drinking with English Methodists. For some reason, toward the end of the conversation, the topic of guardian angels came up. In no uncertain terms, Denys Turner proclaimed that of course he believed that he had a guardian angel. 

At the time I didn’t think much about that comment. If it registered at all, I probably just chalked it up to being one of those eccentricities that so often accompanies brilliance. But for whatever reason, as time went on, his comment stuck with me. I found myself wondering where such a strong opposition to belief in angels really came from. I came to realize that it wasn’t because I believed the arguments for the existence of angels didn’t stack up—I had just somehow internalized the perspective that intelligent and sophisticated Christians didn’t believe in angels (it’s probably safest to just blame Bultmann). But here was Denys Turner, a man who was clearly much more intelligent and sophisticated in his thinking than I, a man who had been instrumental in Marxist-Christian dialogue and so clearly no stranger to contemporary thought, believing in angels. I was forced to face the fact that it is entirely possible to be an intelligent, sophisticated Christian thinker and believe in angels. Not only this, but because I respected Denys Tuner so much, I began considering whether or not I should actually believe in angels. I found myself questioning the nature of the my view of the Bible, Christian tradition, and the relationship of modern worldviews to both. I eventually realized that, while I wasn’t going to stake my life on a belief in angels, I was becoming more and more open to the existence of a spiritual realm. 

At this point I’d expect you to be wondering why I’ve spent so much time telling this rather trivial and—I’m sure some of you are thinking—completely irrelevant story. This anecdote has become for me something of an archetype for what I’ve come to hold about how we as people change our minds. I would put forward that most of the time, logical arguments, no matter how well constructed or substantiated by evidence, do not on their own actually alter people’s beliefs and worldviews. Instead, I would say that most of the time people change their minds and then seek out arguments that support their new views. At the very least, people have to become open to the possibility of the thing being argued for before an argument for that conclusion can be persuasive. Furthermore, I would posit that what causes these changes in belief, or at least what moves a person from a place of entrenched belief to one of openness to other perspectives, is some experiences that disrupts the coherence of one’s securely held belief. In my example, I came into the conversation thinking that the group of people who believed in angels was completely separate from the group of people who are sophisticated Christian thinkers. Sitting face to face with someone who clearly belonged to both groups forced me to reconsider whether the way I had divided up the world was entirely accurate.

Of course, all this runs quite contrary to the way that many of us see ourselves. We have been trained to think of ourselves as completely logical thinkers, as people who, if just presented with the right facts and sound, cogent arguments, would clearly see the errors in our judgment and fix our worldviews accordingly. However, regardless of whether or not this is how we as people would like to be able to approach the world, or whether or not this is how we should approach the world, I don’t think this is really how any of us do approach the world. Almost any particular belief a person holds is not the result of disinterested, logical reasoning, but rather is tied up in all sorts of other factors ranging from fears about our own physical well being to the need for a secure identity. This is not to say that we are not being “reasonable” in holding beliefs that are determined by all of these sorts of other factors; it is precisely our rationality, our ability to form sophisticated and plausible arguments for any number of untrue pictures of reality, that so often prevents people from being convinced by arguments against their deeply held beliefs. 

Far too often, I feel that the approach to fighting for full LGBTQ inclusion in the United Methodist Church begins with this assumption that well-reasoned argument is alone sufficient to convince people of the truthfulness of our position. This tactic seems to say: If people only had all the right information, then they would see the errors of their reasoning, change their positions, and now support full inclusion of LGBTQ people in the life of the church. While such a tactic has certainly convinced some people to support full inclusion, more often than not, I’d say that it fails to gain much traction among those who staunchly hold to the idea that anything other than heterosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching.” Faced with such unwavering opposition, the more optimistic among us will often say, “Ah, our arguments must just not be clear enough, or they must not be reaching a wide enough audience, or we need better and more persuasive ones,” and then set to work clarifying, distributing, or constructing. The more pessimistic among us might become convinced of the seeming futility of the whole exercise and start thinking that those opposed to full inclusion are fundamentally so intellectually or morally defective that they are beyond hope—i.e., they are too unintelligent to understand the arguments or have allowed themselves to be too blinded by prejudice, bigotry, and hatred to accept them. 

I can’t accept either of these conclusions. Even if we were to finally arrive at arguments with only the strongest biblical, theological, and scientific behind them, presented to every single person on this planet in the clearest possible language, I still do not think that they would have enough force on their own to convince those who have made up their minds against the conclusion. At the same time, I will not concede that inability to receive these arguments stems necessarily from a moral or intellectual defect (I have known people who are exceptionally intelligent and otherwise incredibly saintly and yet do not support full inclusion), and I am unwilling to believe that we must resign ourselves to the fact that those who remain staunch in their opposition will always remain that way or that there is nothing we can do to help convince them otherwise. Instead, if I’m right that people—all people—aren’t argued out of their deeply held beliefs, but rather change their beliefs or become open to changing their beliefs as a result of experiences that upset their worldview, then we need to stop figuring out how we can best argue and begin thinking how we can best provide worldview disrupting experiences. 

 

. . .

This is part 1 of a 3-part series. Parts 2 and 3 will be posted over the weekend.

Told to Go Back into the Closet, Michael Leaves Ordination Process and the UMC

Michael Overman is called by God to the ministry. In his ordination process in the United Methodist Church, he was told by his District Committee on Ministry to go back into the closet. They passed him, but Michael has chosen to leave the UMC and serve as God created him to be. First is a video of a prayer offered by his church community, Holy Covenant UMC in Chicago, Illinois this past Sunday as a response to the Eucharist. The video is followed by Michael's story from his blog.

Embracing wholeness, answering call…

by Michael Overman, Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary senior 

Little did I know that a private message I received from a fellow member of the Gay Christian Network nearly four years ago would drastically change the entire course of my life. I’d been a part of the online community for a short while, and at the time, was not involved in any sort of faith community. My previous home church, a Baptist church in west-central Indiana had asked me to step down from all ministry activities and suggested I stop attending services because of my identity as a gay man. These events led to a spiritual drought and a six-year hiatus from any church.

In winter of 2008, I received the aforementioned private message from a GCN member who lived in one of Chicago’s many suburbs and whose son lived in the city. He’d read many of my posts, and felt led to tell me of a church community on the edge of the Lincoln Park and Lakeview neighborhoods, Holy Covenant United Methodist Church. It would take a few more months before I could muster up the courage to take his advice and attend a worship service at Holy Covenant, but finally, two weeks before Easter of 2009, I woke up and made the trek down to the red-bricked, mural-emblazened building that would become my home, my refuge, my safe haven away from a world that told me it didn’t want me, not as I was at least.

From there, the rest seems like history. Immediately, I was made to feel welcomed, loved, and valued. The people of Holy Covenant made it a priority to get to know me and to be a part of the healing work God was doing in my life and on my severely broken heart. I experienced my first ever Maundy Thursday service, which coincidentally was the first time I’d been offered communion since leaving my former denomination. I was welcomed to the table as a broken but whole person, never asked to leave a part of myself at the door. Even to this day, I cannot put into words how significant this was for me.

That summer, I marched in Chicago’s Pride Parade for the first time with my new community. Along the route, I had a conversation with a few other church members. The question was asked whether or not I’d ever considered going to seminary and pursuing a vocation in ministry. I had, in fact, but had been led to believe that my sexual orientation made me unfit for answering that call. These new friends told me otherwise. They affirmed that my orientation was part of who God made me to be. I’d never really heard any of this before. And so I visited the seminary suggested to me (Garrett-Evangelical in Evanston, Illinois) and applied for admission soon thereafter. While my acceptance letter came quickly, I postponed going for another year for the sake of discernment. More changes were to come.

I met my now-husband and life partner, Frankie, who was also welcomed into the Holy Covenant community, regardless of his difference of faith beliefs as a practicing neo-pagan. Holy Covenant loved me, and I loved him, and so they grew to love him as well. I was given various opportunities to serve, including serving communion, reading scripture, singing, praying during worship, leading a small group, serving on a committee, and so much more. As time progressed, all of the brokenness I’d experienced as man coping with depression and the effects of being raised in a physically, verbally, and emotionally abusive household started to mend, albeit slowly. I was learning to love myself through the love with which I was being covered by this amazing family of faith. I decided to pursue ordination within the denomination in which I’d found a new home.

Herein lies the struggle. Although churches like Holy Covenant exist where all people are welcomed regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, the United Methodist Church’s written polity refers to the practice of homosexuality as “incompatible with Christian teaching” and therefore individuals such as myself are believed to be unfit for ordained ministry. It didn’t make sense. I’d known gay clergy, gay partnered clergy, in our denomination. What did it all mean? As I began seminary and developed relationships with people serving elsewhere in the district and conference, I learned the answer to my questions, and they were disheartening.

In order for me to be ordained in the UMC, I would quintessentially have to go into a professional, vocational closet. In meetings and on paper, I would be “single,” making no reference to my sexual identity or my relationship status. I would have to leave a part of me outside of the ordination process. I’d known others going through the same thing who seemed to be okay with it all, who seemed sane and mentally/emotionally healthy, and so I pressed forward. I continued in my seminary education, served another church in the city for my second-year internship, and proceeded to have my local church declare me as a candidate for ordination.

The time came for me to meet with my district committee on ordained ministry for their approval and certification of my candidacy process. I met with mentors and fellow clergy for advice on how to best express myself on paper and in speech. I found myself using the term “significant other” for Frankie instead of “husband” or “partner.” It hurt, deeply. In the meeting itself, I shared my excitement for getting to work with The Marin Foundation this year—a non-profit whose mission is to bridge the relational gap between the evangelical church and the LGBT community. I spoke of my passion for full inclusion of all people. I have no doubt that anyone in the room had any misgivings over my sexual orientation or relationship status. I was partnered, and it was easy to tell that my partner was not of the opposite sex.

And so we sat there with this invisible rainbow elephant in the room. One committee member asked me why I’d felt it important to mention my relationship in my paperwork, especially using such red-flag language as “significant other.” He continued, “You’re not going to have a problem here. We simply want to make you conscious of what is and is not going to make it possible and easy for you to make it through the whole ordination process. There are people at the board level who will rip you apart if there’s even a hint of you being, well, you know.” Another person asked why I, with my passion for inclusion and with my knowledge and awareness of the state of our denomination not being inclusive, would stay here. Why not go elsewhere? By the time they were ready to deliberate and vote on my certification, I was nearly in tears and ready to leave the room as quickly as I possibly could.

The committee certified me, and I felt no joy. It had been made clear what I would have to do and how I would have to portray myself in order to receive clerical credentials in the UMC. While it was never articulated so directly, the message was clear: You cannot be ordained here as a whole person. You have to split yourself. We don’t want all of you. Only part of you is truly worthy of this calling. You have to hide. You have to lie. You have to be someone other than you.

In the weeks since, I’ve prayed and fought and yelled and screamed and cried and talked and sat in silence. I’ve wrestled with what to do. Slowly, the recognition of what was being asked of me came, and I could not foresee myself complying. My family at Holy Covenant taught me how to be a whole person and gave me the strength to start loving myself, truly for the first time. It would be a grievous sin for me to undo all their hard work, and all of my own. My identity and relationship are something God loves and finds joy in and takes pleasure in. I am God’s beloved in the entirety of who I am, and God has not asked or called me to change. I am worthy because my Creator has called me worthy, and to lie or be inauthentic would be to make unclean what God has called clean, to make bad what God has called good. I cannot do that… I will not.

Two weeks ago, I submitted my letter stepping out of the ordination process for the United Methodist Church. I’ve met with a pastor of a United Church of Christ / Disciples of Christ congregation who is supportive of my decision and willing to help me get involved with his congregation and begin the ordination process in his denomination. This morning, I stood before some of the people I love most in my life and told them I was leaving. Even now, the pain feels unbearable. I’ve felt like I was giving up, but I realized that to stay and to hide would be to do just that. In leaving and pursuing my call to ordained ministry in a setting where I can be a whole person, I’m honoring the work that my friends and family at Holy Covenant have put into getting me to this point. With my partner, friends, and church family gathered around me this morning, their hands laid on me and on each other, I felt surrounded by and covered with more love than I feel I could ever deserve or be given. I listened and cried as friends came up, sharing my pain and expressing their pride in my strength, courage, and apparent bravery. I spent time holding one of the young boys I’ve grown to love, and got the chance to hug another. I know I’m always welcome there, and I leave knowing just how much I’ve loved, supported, and valued.

Change will come. There will be a day when all God’s children are welcome at the table, both receiving God’s blessing and presiding over God’s gifts of meal and water, regardless of who they love. I desperately long for that day, and I pray for the strength to be a part of the work God’s Spirit is doing to get us there. I know much of that strength will come from my Holy Covenant family.

I will come back… someday soon. We will still have conversations, exchange emails, share meals and drinks, offer each other love, prayer, support, and encouragement. I cannot tell you how much you’ve changed me, how much your love has given me new life and restored my joy. Thank you for taking me in, helping me answer my call, affirming and celebrating my relationship, sitting with me in times of grief, depression, sorrow and joy. I love you all so much. Know that as you’ve given me a piece of yourselves, I have left a part of myself with each and every one of you. Though we may feel divided, we are one with Christ, one with each other, and one in ministry to all the world.

 

Michael Overman is in his last year at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary and is now entering the ordination process in the United Church of Christ / Disciples of Christ denomination. To read more of Michael's writing, go to his blog.