Reconciling Ministries Network

The Signs of Love Conquering Fear Are Everywhere!

A Letter from the RMN Board of Directors

The signs of love conquering fear are everywhere! Supporters of Reconciling Ministries are doing more than ever before. The RMN Called to Witness campaigns in 2011 celebrated 67 regional events where 1595 reconciling persons engaged strategy, reconciling process, public narrative storytelling, and building teams. Of the 682 participants at Sing a New Song, over 100 were young adults.  We placed 500 calls to United Methodist delegates to General Conference. We gave $891,812 to support the mission locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally through Reconciling Ministries Network.

Your generosity made it possible for RMN to gather in coalition with the Methodist Federation for Social Action and Affirmation in early 2011 to plan Love Your Neighbor for both a regional and churchwide impact. Now we are living into the reality of a multinational church and underwrote our first staff persons to engage central conference relationships. You even helped us contract with media experts to conduct focus groups in Cote d'Ivoire and test messages in Uganda, Liberia, South Africa, and other countries to find common cause and build bridges.

Can We Sing a Song from The Same Page

By Peter L. DeGroote

(The following has been written with input from several long-term companions on the reconciling journey. I am thankful for their help but they are not responsible for errors of fact or judgment.)

Marriage equality was legally established in New York because Governor Cuomo required that the various, and sometimes competing, LGBT groups get on the same page. His support required their unity, which he saw necessary for success.

This lesson of “the same page” runs through my mind as I think about the various LGBT related resolutions heading to General Conference, which is often as convoluted and nefarious as any state legislature. Chief among them are those that would provide the following:

• Elimination from the Discipline of the declaration that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teachings.” (¶161.F)
• Elimination of the Disciplinary prohibition of the ordination of LGBT candidates.  (¶304.3)
• Allow the celebration by our clergy and in our churches, at the discretion of the pastor, in those civil jurisdictions that have approved civil unions or marriage equality laws.  (¶341.6)
• Complete removal of all restrictions and prohibitions on the celebration of marriage or civil unions by our clergy and in our churches. (¶341.6)
• Acceptance of the fact that the church suffers from institutional discrimination toward LGBT people and that all negative provisions concerning them should be removed from the Discipline.

Some argue the first priority should be elimination of the declaration that the practice of “homosexuality” is incompatible with Christian teaching. First adopted into the Social Principles in 1972, it served as the foundation for the exclusion from ordination, the ban on celebrating marriage/unions, and even the Judicial Council’s finding that local pastor can deny membership to LGBT people. Those supporting this priority claim that removal of the cornerstone would result in all else eventually falling.

Supporters of resolutions allowing for ordination of LGBT folks point to the many instances of highly qualified people being denied ordination, giving up their calling, or leaving the UMC for another denomination. Further momentum arises from those conferences that do not do not consider sexual identity a relevant factor in determining the qualifications of their candidates, the result being the routine ordination of otherwise qualified LGBT candidates. Further, the recent declaration of support for LGBT ordination by 33 retired bishops brings this into focus for many, their rationale being a clear statement of the many issues. (Note: the retired bishops proposal would eliminate only one of the two versions of the incompatibility language. The foundation declaration at ¶161.F would remain.)

The marriage equality resolutions differ in scope. The first allows for the celebration of marriages in those civil jurisdictions having adopted civil unions or a marriage equality law. It arises out of the many challenges faced by local churches and pastors in those jurisdictions: How do we respond to the pastoral needs of our LGBT members and community expectations?

Those who support the broader marriage equality resolutions take note of the quiet celebration of marriages and civil unions in our churches for quite some time, even where there is no civil legislation to provide a legal context.  For many a church marriage remains a marriage in the minds and spirit of the couple, the pastor, and the congregation. To them, restricting the celebration of LGBT marriage to those civil jurisdictions that have passed the necessary legislation not only seems prejudicial but an abandonment of the Church’s prophetic role, turning the church into an agency serving the state.

Back to the all on “the same page” lesson:  The above alternatives, and others, are related but energized by different experiences and values. Could they all pass? Could a single omnibus resolution including them all pass?  Can we figure out a strategy that allows us to find agreement on priorities and prevent our working against each other?

General Conference procedures further complicate the matter. As in most civil legislatures, resolutions first go to a legislative committee that can endorse, recommend against, combine, or let them die. Further, all LGBT resolutions will not go to the same committee. While the committee assignment of resolutions is not yet entirely clear, our ability to relate to the work of several different legislative committees is a critical factor. It is possible that some of us will go our own way without regard to an overall strategy, thereby diluting our ability to influence the outcomes.

One of the major advantages we have is that many of the people necessary to help us figure out a strategy will be at Sing a New Song in Port Huron, Ohio at the end of August. I do hope we are able to find a way that we can all sing from the same page.

---

Peter is a second career pastor who has served in several churches in the Baltimore-Washington Conference. Prior to his ordination, he was a secondary-school teacher, a university lecturer in Government, an Associate in a government related professional association, CEO of a national financial institution. Peter was involved in Mid-Atlantic Affirmation, served on the National Council of Affirmation, and sat on the Board of the Reconciling Congregations Program, the predecessor name for RMN and has worked with BWARM (Baltimore-Washington Reconciling United Methodists).

Comments From the Petition to End UMC Laws That Discriminate

Here are some of the comments that people have left when signing the Petition to End UMC Laws That Discriminate sponsored by Black Scholars and Clergy of the United Methodist Church.

 

Name: Rev. Dr. Gayraud S. Wilmore

"Many black Presbyterians share your concern for justice regarding the ordination of GLBT persons to clerical and lay ministries. We have made greater progress in our church as a whole than in its African American sector, where the special problems of bibliolatry and the tampering of old school white evangelicalism in the hands of missionaries who went to Africa and the American South still confound us. Speaking only for myself, please accept our thanks for inviting those of us who are not United Methodists to join you in this campaign to welcome all persons who seek--with true faith, love, and hope--to share in the ministry of the gospel of the Universal Church of Jesus Christ."

Name: Rev. Jocelyn M. Roper, D.Miss.
"I support this Petition with the understanding that missional and spiritual diversity must be maintained in this denomination. As an African American I am well aware that the passion and joy that my ancestors brought to Methodism."

Name: Rev. Margaret E. Howland
"Jesus particularly made a point of including those whom society likes to exclude. How can we do less. When we become the allies of LGBTQ sisters and brothers, we are truly the allies of Jesus."

Name: Ruben Castilla Herrera
"I am Latino, a person of faith, a former migrant farm-worker, a person of color, a Untied States citizen, a father, a family person, an active community member, a community organizer, a fighter for "liberty and justice for all" and a longtime active member of the United Methodist Church. As I fight for the rights of people, I strongly feel that it is right that I sign this petition and unequivocally support the right to ordination of LGBTQ persons. "Liberty and justice for all", starts in the church...in my church; The United Methodist Church because all means all!"

Name: Rev. Da Vita D. McCallister
"I was ordained in the United Methodist Church and served proudly in the Detroit Annual Conference at the Historic Central United Methodist Church of Detroit. I surrendered my credentials and was accepted into full standing in the United Church of Christ because of the bigotry levied against Same-Gender Loving persons in the United Methodist Church. I pray for the restoration of this Church as a prophetic voice in the world. Blessings to each of you for taking this stand within a denomination that has silenced so many other voices. "

Name: Harley Mathews
"I am one of a few leaders in a Young Adult programs in South Texas (corpus christi, tx) that has a thriving UMC Young Adult program. This discrimination keeps us from legitimizing in our theology as a church the hope we have for our friends, families, and future members/clergy that are in love with Jesus and his Church. I pray that it will be removed so that ALL people can serve God in the way I do."

Name: JoAnne F. Henry PhD
"In 1972 I attended our General Conference in Atlanta and participated in the Youth and Young Adult Caucuses. The issue of inclusion of our LGBT folks in ordained ministry was being discussed then. It is 2011, we need to move on this important justice issue and truly set the Welcome Table now instead of waiting for some far off eschaton. The trumpets are blowing now! Judgement is happening now!"

Name: Sabra Lowery
"Please let the tolerance of some UMC churches become the policy of all UMC. Let us live up to the motto, 'open mind, open hearts...' "

Whatever? Really Church. You Can Do Better.

by Jen Ihlo

 I was one of about 120 folks from the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference (BWAC) who participated yesterday in the United Methodist Leadership Summit, "A Call to Action - Reordering the Life of the Church."  On this beautiful day, it was great to connect with annual conference friends and be linked via webcast with other United Methodists from all over the world.  The goal was laudable -- how to reverse the trend of declining UM membership.

We heard presentations about the Call to Action report from two bishops, a young adult, and a general secretary.  We broke into small groups here in the BWAC to discuss questions about the areas of focus from the report.  We reported back via email to the presenters in Nashville and they (the presenters) responded to questions from around the world.

After hearing, during the opening presentations, such language as the need for radical hospitality and to be more welcoming, I was hopeful.  By the end of the day, however, I was disillusioned, hurt, and angry because once again, I and every gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender UM were rendered invisible.  At every opportunity to include us in the various lists of folks who are marginalized by the church, we were left out.  Even in response to a question about inclusion and bridging the gap, there was no mention of us -- the panel talked about race, about ageism, about gender, and an offhanded "or whatever."  I am to be dismissed as a "whatever"?!  Is this really what the church believes?  Why can't our leaders simply include us respectfully as people of sacred worth and say the words "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender" out loud and in public?  The proverbial roof will not fall in. The roof falls in when we continue to violate our named faith values (radical hospitality) in the same breath that we name them.

I guess I should have been prepared.  I should have expected the silence, the lost opportunities to name the discrimination against GLBT UMs.  But I wasn't; I had somehow continued to hold out hope that this time it might be different.  And so, as I wrestle with my disillusionment, hurt, and anger, I continue to wonder:  what will it take for church leadership (at every level) to recognize that membership decline is not likely to reverse while the church continues to discriminate.  What will it take for our current church leadership to follow the lead of the retired Bishops who recently called for an end to the discrimination against ordaining gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender folks who God has called into ministry?  

 And, so, my Call to Action has become one of visibility.  Our community needs to assert our voices into this process by gathering in our Reconciling congregations and communities to watch the video, discuss the questions posed at the end of the report, and send your comments and questions to the Council of Bishops.  The video, report, and survey can be found at www.umcleadershipsummit.org.  Complete the online survey before 12:00 midnight EDT April 10, 2011. Be sure and write your comments in the final question.  Let's Believe Out Loud and let the Council of Bishops know that we are here and we are tired of being invisible.  Let us challenge the Council of Bishops to Believe Out Loud and be the prophetic leaders that the Discipline calls them to be.  Ask them to be risk takers and rabble rousers, not bean counters!  That is the change the church needs to be relevant and vital

---

Jen is co-founder and current Chair of BWARM (Baltimore-Washington Area Reconciling United Methodists). A lifelong United Methodist, Jen grew up in the Texas Conference. She is now a member of Dumbarton UMC in Washington DC. Jen has served in various leadership positions in the church, from UMYF to local church Trustees Chair to the Baltimore-Washington Conference Discipleship Council and Connectional Table. Jen served on the Common Witness Coalition Legislative Team during GC 2008.

The Last United Methodist Church Trial

by Rev. Gilbert H. Caldwell

The news about the coming Church Trial of Rev. Amy Delong evokes within me a series of memories. Full disclosure prompts me to say that I was honored to be asked to write a chapter in the book that Amy and Tex Sample edited; "The Loyal Opposition; The Struggle Within The Church on Homosexuality". The title of my chapter was "The Last Prejudice". The following are some of my thoughts as I ponder another Church Trial in this the 21st century.

1. Over and over again I hear, I am told, and I read, "Race and gender are realities at birth, same sex loving orientation is not." This paraphrase of these statements is often followed with something like this; "Therefore because responding to same sex loving inclinations is a choice, when this choice is acted upon and self-acknowledged by a clergy person, he/she must be brought to trial by the Church."

If there is such clarity on the wrongness of punishing/harming persons because of their race or gender, where were the Church Trials of those Church members who engaged in actions, sometimes violently, against persons because of their race or gender in the past?

2. It is encouraging to read that some persons who support the charges and the trial of Rev. Amy Delong do so reluctantly because they are in disagreement with the punitive language/legislation in the Discipline.

Another set of trials comes to mind as I read the above, the Nuremberg Trials. President Harry Truman said of those trials; "Never again can men say, 'I was following orders. And never again can men in power give such orders." Those who make the decision about the future ministry of Rev. Amy Delong, I am sure will ponder; "How must I respond to my conscience that is at a place distinctly antithetical to the legislation of the denomination?"

3. Those of us who are against the death penalty, have at times raised this question; "Why do we keep on killing people to show that killing people is wrong?" I ask, and I am sure many others ask as Amy Delong prepares for her trial; "Why in the Church, the community of faith that acknowledges that we all are sinners, do some in the Church believe that bringing to trial other members in the Church, is justifiable?"

It is obvious that heterosexism, that "uses" Scripture for its justification is still with us even if some express the hope that it is "The Last Prejudice". My hope is that the trial of Amy Delong will touch us so deeply and unearth the sense of justice that is within all of us that her trial will be "The Last United Methodist Church Trial."

---

The Rev. Gilbert H. Caldwell is a retired United Methodist Minister who lives in Asbury Park, N.J. He was active in the Massachusetts unit of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and participated in the civil-rights movement throughout the nation. In 2000, he, with others, organized the RMN Extension ministry United Methodists of Color for a Fully Inclusive Church (UMOC), an organization committed to the full inclusion of LGBT people in every aspect of church and society. His recent book, Something Within: Works by Rev. Gilbert H. Caldwell is available from Church Within A Church.

A Statement of Counsel to the Church - 2011

Out of concern for the welfare of all God’s people, and, out of special concern for the people of The United Methodist Church, we, United Methodist Bishops – retired, believe The United Methodist Church should remove the following statement from The Book of Discipline (2008):

“…The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.  Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.”  ¶304.3

Our lives and ministries over the years have included prayerful, thoughtful consideration of our Holy Bible, our Wesleyan heritage, reflection on our experience of the church and world, and our conviction of God’s intention for a world transformed.

With this statement of conviction and counsel we seek:

• To affirm that the historic tests of “gifts and evidence of God’s grace” for ordained ministry override any past or present temporal restrictions such as race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
• To urge the Church, ecumenical and denominational, to change the manner in which it relates to gay, lesbian and transgendered persons in official statements, judicial proceedings, and in congregational life.
• To declare our conviction that the current disciplinary position of The United Methodist Church, a part of our historical development, need not, and should not, be embraced as the faithful position for the future.
• To make known our names and shared personal conviction on this matter and to encourage other church and Episcopal leaders to do the same.

With increasing frequency we observe and experience the following disturbing realities and know them to be detrimental to the mission of a Church of Jesus Christ:

• Laity and clergy, gay and straight, withdrawing membership or absenting themselves from the support of congregational and denominational Church life in order to maintain personal integrity.
• Young adults, especially, embarrassed to invite friends and expressing dismay at the unwillingness of our United Methodist Church to alter its 39-year exclusionary stance.
• Closeted pastors, currently called and ordained in our church, living divided lives while offering effective appreciated ministry.
• Bishops being drained of energy by upholding Church Discipline while regarding it as contrary to their convictions.
• Bishops caught between care for the Church by reappointing an effective gay or lesbian pastor and care for the Discipline by charging them under current legislation.
• Seminary leaders desiring greater flexibility and openness from the church in order to advance their mission of identifying, recruiting, enrolling, educating and spiritually forming Christian leaders.
• Christian gay men and women understanding themselves called of God to seek ministry opportunities within their United Methodist family Church home, but having to decide between:
  • leaving to go to accepting denominations, or
  • staying and praying for change, or
  • challenging Church law and accepting punitive actions.

Our United Methodist Church, ashamed and repentant in the past, ended official and unofficial restrictions on candidacy, ordination and appointment for reason of race, gender and ethnicity. We believe the God we know in Jesus is leading us to issue this counsel and call – a call to transform our church life and our world.

United Methodist Episcopal Leaders-Retired

Sharon Z. Rader

Donald A. Ott

Beverly Shamana

C. Joseph Sprague

Melvin G. Talbert

S. Clifton Ives

Joe A. Wilson

William Lewis

Forrest Stith

Susan Morrison

Susan Hassinger

Judy Craig

Dale White

William Boyd Grove

C. P. Minnick

Kenneth L.  Carder

Roy I. Sano

Joe Yeakel

Kenneth Hicks

Joseph Humper

Monk Bryan

Jesse DeWitt

Jack Tuell

J. Lloyd Knox

Charles W. Jordan

J.  Lawrence McCleskey

Marshall L. Meadors, Jr.

Franz Schafer

Sheldon Duecker

Fritz Mutti

Cal McConnell

Leontine T. C. Kelly

Impressions: Reading Judicial Council Decisions and Remarks

by Rev. Troy Plummer

Click to read full Decisions (1158, 1160, 1164, 1178, 1179) 

Also:  UMNEWS summary

On October 28, 2010, The Judicial Council, our United Methodist Supreme Court, said they recognized a church law as “wrong headed” that allowed a pastor to deny membership by transfer from another denomination based solely on sexual orientation, but then refused to take any action to correct the church law. 

This intentional refusal to right an obvious wrong is the latest act of discriminating hurt directed by the UMC towards LGBT people.  The notorious 1032 from October 31, 2005 introduced “pastoral discretion” in matters of church membership for the first time since the denomination was formed in 1968.  The Rev. Dr. Gayle Felton, author of this particular wording in the Book of Discipline, advised the Judicial Council that none of the writers had any intent to allow pastors to discriminate against LGBT people and that such “pastoral discretion is a myth.” 

We can agree with the way Judicial Council members describe the 1032 decision:  “wrongly decided…usurping…took liberties…ignored settled precedent…created a perverse anomaly.”  But such stern language rings hollow when allowing the decision to be unchallenged officially by the council when opportunity is given.  Undoing a judicial fiat such as 1032 is principled faithful work within the bounds and responsibility of the Judicial Council. 

Additionally, a few council members express weariness at “repeated request for review, reconsideration and retraction” and describe such efforts as “insanity” and “tepidly symbolic”.   Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender persons and their allies can identify with weariness at repeated side-stepping while professing vigorous dissent.  But we are never tepid about longing and working for justice.  The judge hearing the case of the persistent widow surely had some choice words about her persistence.  And though weary, we know the widow wins (Luke 18:5). 

While not dissenting from the decisions, other council members advance that 1032 was indeed overturned at General Conference with the changes made from may to shall in Paragraph 225 on membership. One council member “helpfully” suggests another gay person must experience rejection by the church in membership for the council to incorporate the new Paragraph 225 language.  

I’d rather do more than just offer up another sacrificial lamb. 

RMN organizes at the grassroots level building the movement of inclusion to transform our church and world.  You can be a part and take another step for justice.   You can help grow power for change:

• Participate and help plan a Believe Out Loud Together training for January through March 2011
• Organize people and scholarships for the MFSA and RMN co-sponsored Sing A New Song movement-building event August 25-28, 2011
• Join your regional reconciling group’s effort for annual conference witness, election of delegates, and legislative efforts
• Make connections and common cause with our world-wide church
• Give!  Make a contribution to empower RMN to advance our advocacy for the full inclusion of LGBT people in the UMC.

---

Rev. Troy G. Plummer joined Reconciling Ministries Network as the executive director in November of 2003. RMN 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. Troy organizes grassroots efforts coast-to-coast sharing an inclusive Gospel message. He coordinates biennial movement building convocations and provides leadership for LGBTQ equality through nonviolent witness and protest, legislative action, and coalition partnerships at the quadrennial General Conferences of the worldwide United Methodist Church. In 2007, he launched five-years of organizing campaigns to grow the movement.

Prior to RMN, Troy served for 13 years on the pastoral staff of Bering Memorial United Methodist Church in Houston, Texas. He directed Bering’s on-site counseling center for those affected by HIV/AIDS. Outside Bering’s sanctuary in 1999, he performed a “street wedding” for a lesbian couple celebrating 25 years together and facilitated Bering’s equal treatment of all couples policy. He also coordinated Bible Study, mission trips, retreats, and nonviolence training. Facing a bomb threat with 50 other couples, Troy and Walter, shared promises and rings on Freedom To Marry Day, February 12, 2003 for their 5th anniversary.

Judicial Council Decision

In response to the recent ruling by the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church.

by Jennifer Soule, RMN Legal Counsel

On a personal level, it should be clear that my faith is in the true Spirit of God, the actual Nature of God, of which we are all a part.  My faith is in the actual connectedness of the Reconciling people and in the growing realization that God's Grace is infinitely abundant and available to all.  My faith can also be called Trust, that the unfolding Goodness is with us and will remain with us, if we have or gain the awareness to realize it.  I do, often, consider the ministry of Jesus and I really do ask myself what would Jesus do.  My faith is not, in contrast, in The United Methodist Church, or its ability to act in concert with what I know of the Nature of God.  It seems to repeatedly demonstrate otherwise to me, and has for many years.

It has, again now, through a key branch of its government, demonstrated a kind of defiance of an awareness of what God really is.  It has now engaged people in arguments about "law" that would be used to dispossess them of the loving embrace of a faith community within The United Methodist system, and it has turned them away.  It did occur to me to ask myself while in New Orleans for the proceedings, what would Jesus think about a "church court?"  What would Jesus think about analyzing the twists and turns and complications of a rather constrained and obtuse set of "church cases?"  Is what I am doing in any way like what Jesus would have done?  I think you might guess what I concluded from those questions.  However, like my counterparts in the movement, I believe in justice and full inclusion and I have a commitment to working for those things.  Even in this way.  It is almost as if I cannot really believe that a church and that The United Methodist Church would affirm discrimination and exclusion toward LGBT people in the way it has been doing.

From my perspective, it is even more clear at this point that this institution is not a safe or welcoming place for LGBT people.  I could not recommend it to friends, family or clients (such as my Reconciling family are to me).  There was an opportunity here for the misguided institution to move forward, and to increase the availability of the church to all people. There was a nice range of opportunities, actually, from what should have been easy to what would have been a real step toward integrity with the ministry of Jesus.  What has occurred is that even the easy, sure, plain steps were refused by this Judicial Council.  It was widely recognized that Decision 1032 was completely baseless, unfounded in any church law, misguided, mean-spirited and utterly outside of the tradition (as we believed we knew it) of the church and church membership.  For dissenting members from 1032 and newly elected members (elected as a response to 1032) to embrace 1032 now, and refuse to reconsider 1032 on its own motion, demonstrates that this newly formulated Judicial Council has abandoned even reason.  Its limited finding on another docket item that the 2008 modification to Paragraph 225 was necessary to modify 1032 and, additionally, only modifies 1032 as to transferring members, overlooks that there was never a basis in the first place in the prior Paragraph 225 for discrimination against any category of prospective members based on status (in particular, homosexual status).  This decision, in fact, gives credence under church law to the wrong premise announced in 1032 that authorized refusing church membership to homosexuals.

The more courageous step (only because the institution does not show much courage in general, and certainly not on the LGBT inclusion issue) would have been to accept the judicial function and apply the plain all-inclusive meaning of the Constitution, that denies discrimination based on any status and that is echoed in Paragraph 139, claiming that this church will not act with any semblance of discrimination.  This was again deferred with, to use the words of our opponent from Good News, a "tortured" understanding of the words at hand and a shackled idea of the role of a Judicial body.

I had hoped for leadership and courage from this revered entity, and I am still sitting here wondering what happened to that and why this church seems to drain those qualities out of the active parts of its institutions that should be beacons of light for an expanding, embracing church.  LGBT people are deferred again, and worse.

There will be a time of deep reflection, as there always is when profound discrimination occurs. It will take courage on our part to do this honestly.   It is true that our effort itself was enough to proclaim our faith and our sense of what it means to see Jesus as the ideal example of Compassion and Love.  It was in that sense a wonderful, fulfilling experience and great success!  And I do not speak for RMN when I say that I think we need to ask ourselves to squarely face facts about whether The United Methodist Church can accommodate growth and inclusion, or whether it is now demonstrating a commitment to mere survival another way, a way that is out of integrity with its own Constitution.  In other words, does the UMC have the actual capacity to accommodate inclusion?

All of this is good information for us to have, and to have now, and we can, each of us, determine what to do with it.  Some will look to General Conference 2012 and beyond.  Some will look to reorganizing the church's international structure to accommodate regional differences.  Some will look to change closed hearts, doors and minds one at a time.  I will tell you that, like in my secular job as a plaintiff's discrimination lawyer, when I see terrible and hurtful injustice, it causes a visceral reaction, and, often anger.  When this kind of discrimination and injustice is coupled with lack of integrity - and by that I mean saying one thing (Constitution; Par. 139) and doing another (1032 and today's decisions), it is just that much worse, at least for me.

My work continues in other forums and places in the world at the moment!  I presently have a case in which African-Americans, my clients, were denied admittance to an upscale night club because of the color of their skin.  The employees were told not to allow more than 25% African-Americans in at any one given time.  This is, also, outrageous discrimination.  Businesses cannot discriminate in that way.  Churches, on the other hand, can.

My prayer tonight is that the vulnerable people who may take the actions of the Church to be a rejection of them by God are held safe and are protected from further harm.

Just Too Much

Yesterday, I said to a colleague, "Every time I open an Internet browser, it seems that I hear about another gay suicide." I know from my training as a student and scholar of communication that the number of news stories about something, whether shark attacks at the beach, plane crashes, or gay teenagers killing themselves is not necessarily indicative of a trend or pattern, but rather of newsworthiness.

I am not sure whether suicide rates of LGBTQ teenagers are increasing, but the recent number of stories about it has caused me to pause for thought. In a widely circulated video, Ellen addresses this series of recent stories poignantly:

As Ellen says, "we have an obligation to change this. There are messages everywhere that validate this, [...] and we have to make it stop. We can't let intolerance and ignorance take another kid's life."

My dear friends, if ever we become complacent in our work of reconciliation, let this be a reminder of what we're about. Our beloved United Methodist Church is one of the places that produces the sorts of messages Ellen refers to so powerfully here. I need not rehearse the hurtful terms in our polity or the even more hurtful things that faithful--but I believe misguided--United Methodists say in their attempts to interpret and live out that polity.

I know some of our readers would not consider themselves Reconciling UMs. Some are here with questions. Some are here to keep tabs and see what we're doing. So, I want to close with a question for those who disagree with me on the question of inclusion/reconciliation: Do you believe, as I do, that God's heart breaks for these young people and their families? And if so, how does the current language of our official position work to do anything but exacerbate their pain and God's pain? When will we understand the impact and the consequences of our language and the attitudes of our hearts?

---

Leland G. Spencer IV, a lifelong United Methodist, is a PhD student in the department of speech communication at the University of Georgia, where he researches religious rhetoric as it intersects with gender and sexuality. Leland holds an M.A. in Communication from the University of Cincinnati (2009). While in Cincinnati, Leland served as the worship intern at the Wesley Foundation. Leland served as a part-time local pastor at Mapleton United Methodist Church in the East Ohio Conference from 2005 until 2007 when Leland withdrew from the candidacy process because of the United Methodist Church's exclusive position about the ordination of LGBT persons.

Lay Folks Laying the Foundations for Marriage Equality

by Peter L. DeGroote

After the DC Council approved marriage equality as a civil right in Washington the members of Foundry UMC began discussions that culminated in what was called a Summer of Great Discernment to determine the congregation’s views. While clergy in the UM Church decide on religious services, this wasn’t about clergy decision-making. This was a lay process, what, in hindsight, might be called a lay movement.

A resolution was prepared and discussed over the summer. On September 26 the Congregational Council set the resolution before a Church Conference held under the rules of the Book of Discipline and chaired by our District Superintendent. 377 lay members attended. The vote was 367 yes, 8 no, with 2 invalid votes.

The resolution began with the proclamation that as a community of faith we recognize God’s profound blessing of committed life partnerships, including same-gender couples.  Further, that celebrating those relationships is not only an important part of our church’s ministry but is also a witness to the joy of God’s love.

The resolution also makes a claim on the Church Constitution (Disciplinary para 341.6). The Constitution prohibits the structuring of any organizational unit so as to exclude any member or constituent body because of race, color, national origin, status or economic condition. Noting the incorporation of anti-lgbt provisions into the discipline over the recent past, the resolution asserts that the Constitutional prohibitions against exclusion based on status have been violated.

The resolution closes with two commitments. First: to work within the denomination to change the Book of Discipline so that it “may be consistent with the teachings of Jesus.” This commitment includes working for the respect and honor of same-gender marriages in the same way that all marriages are respected and honored.

The second commitment is to equally support and honor marriages licensed in the District of Columbia without regard to the couple’s gender. Accordingly, it offers and approves use of the church sanctuary for all marriages. Finally, while acknowledging clergy discretion over the conduct of services, the congregation pledged to support those clergy who conduct same gender services.

Word travels, of course. We've heard that some conference leaders were "blown away" by the numbers. How many DSs have ever conducted a church business meeting with 377 people voting and even more people in attendance? We've heard that some conference leaders are wondering how to stop or control a lay movement.

The Bishop did send a letter to all Pastors and lay members of the Annual Conference. On one hand he described the underlying conflict in the church; on the other he urged holy conversation.

What will this lay movement do next? My guess is that they will take the Bishop up on holy conversation—in a big way.

*******

To read the Marriage Equality Proposal, click here

To read the Special Edition of the Foundry Forge regarding the Vote and the Summer of Great Discernment, click here

To read the Congregational Council's response to Bishop John Schol's letter to the Conference, click here

---

Peter is a second career pastor who has served in several churches in the Baltimore-Washington Conference. Prior to his ordination, he was a secondary-school teacher, a university lecturer in Government, an Associate in a government related professional association, CEO of a national financial institution. Peter was involved in Mid-Atlantic Affirmation, served on the National Council of Affirmation, and sat on the Board of the Reconciling Congregations Program, the predecessor name for RMN and has worked with BWARM (Baltimore-Washington Reconciling United Methodists).