Reconciling Ministries Network

5 Ways to Make a Reconciling Resolution for 2012

As the new year approaches, many people make resolutions or set goals for 2012. I want to suggest 5 ways to make a resolution that moves The United Methodist Church closer toward full inclusion for all God's children.

1. Prayers

Pray for a fully inclusive church. Pray for General Conference 2012, for the delegates to General Conference, and for the volunteers and staff who are headed to Tampa. Pray for the local church of which you are a part, wherever it may be in the reconciling process (or not). Pray for people you know who need to hear that God's love includes them. Pray for the IRD, the Good News Movement, and others who have different understandings of what the Gospel means. Remember that prayer means listening, too, and responding to what God calls all of us to do.  

2. Presence

Be present at the local church of which you are part. If you can, be present for local or conference-wide Reconciling events, or even General Conference. Be present for the people you know and whomever God might put in your path who needs a Reconciling friend.

3. Gifts

Consider making a gift to RMN. What a great way to honor someone who has touched your life! Perhaps you feel called to make RMN a regular part of your spiritual practice of tithing.

4. Service

RMN has a whole webpage devoted to explaining how to get involved in service! There's also a range of possibilities in the local church to which you relate. And don't forget the many ways to be of service in the micro-politics of everyday conversation and interaction.

5. Witness

Tell your story! Why are you a Reconciling United Methodist? Why does the full humanity off all God's children matter to you, and why is it important within The United Methodist Church? Whether you seek opportunities to share your story or simply welcome those that come along, be open to the movement of the Spirit as chances to offer a word of witness present themselves. 

 

What is your Reconciling Resolution?

 

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.

Truth and Consequences

United Methodists are in the middle of a conversation about the consequences of being in ministry with good consciences.

An open letter from the Council of Bishops and a recent decision by the Judicial Council have most United Methodists thinking that we are talking about whether or not loving couples should be married by our pastors or in our churches—if the couple happens to be the same gender—and whether our pastors should be punished for this ministry.

The truth is, we are talking about having a good conscience about providing ministry to all of our members as much as we are talking about marriage.

Yet, it was marriage equality in states across this country that highlighted the conundrum of whether we should minister to all of our members. Today, with loving couples who happen to be gay or lesbian marrying in Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, Washington, D.C., and the Northwest’s Coquille Indian Tribe, pastors in those states and many others are realizing that they face a decision of conscience that has consequences.

If they follow their vow to minister to all of their church members, they fall outside of the ban of marriages and performing of marriages for same gender couples and could face official complaints—and possibly charges and a trial.

If they follow the prohibition, they betray their vow to the people of God.  When a pastor refuses to minister to the members of their church and community, they are effectively creating second class citizens in the kingdom of God—a baptism with caveats, grace with a catch-22.

Did the World Get Smaller?

by Rev. Troy Plummer

When I was asked to look at Swahili for a resource for General Conference delegates, I was both amazed and a bit stunned.  I knew that it was coming.  I knew we had applied and received a grant for media and multilingual resources for print and for the internet, but it still felt different to actually see the mastheads in Portuguese, French and Swahili.  I knew we were doing focus groups in English and French in Africa among United Methodists.

I also knew that as a coalition we were going to hire a Cross-Culture Common Witness Coordinator and had watched the RMN board identify funds and make personal pledges so that it would happen.

I knew, but it didn’t really seem real until I saw the job posting for the Cross-Culture Witness Coordinator go out on the e-digests for RMN and for MFSA.  Then I knew at an even deeper level when the position was funded through the entirety of 2012 and into 2013.  It was real.

For decades, Reconciling United Methodists have built relationships with United Methodists from around the world—in service and partnership, in common cause and Gospel care.  We have heard story after story of connections made and of the desire to advance these relationship but just did not have the resources to do so.  But with the faithful generosity of many, now we do.  Did the world get a bit smaller or just a bit closer?

If you know someone who would be excited about faithfully, non-colonially, transforming our church and world, please let them know about this exciting opportunity with application information here:   http://mfsaweb.org/?p=5952 .

---

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.

Hearing a New Song

By Peter L. DeGroote

I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh:
And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your young shall see visions,
your old shall dream dreams…Acts 2…

Those refreshing, even consoling words ran through the mind of this 71 year old as I departed Sing a New Song. After 35 years of glbt activism, 31 being primarily related to the UMC, I had become accustomed to disappointment with the church. A friend for most of that period had begun wondering if he had the energy to continue the struggle.  

We were able to set the weariness aside because we had heard our sons and daughters speak the truth. (In the New Testament prophesy is truth telling.) Not biological sons and daughters but those who have taken up the reconciling banner and given it new energy, direction, words, and song. Hearing and feeling their guiding visions, we were left to the luxury of once again dreaming the dreams we had come to doubt. 

No, we are not prepared to abandon the reconciling movement; it has been a place of safety, even a home for too many years. But I am aware that I don’t always understand what young folks are doing, or the reasons behind their strategies, but I usually like the results.  That’s a good reason to get out of their way, cheer them on, and support them when they ask. Their new energy, many changes in the church, and our changing social geography offers them unique opportunities to accomplish what has been so elusive in the past.

And I am once more able to celebrate the past. Years ago, a small group of clergy and seminary students reacted to the 1972 General Conference claim that “homosexuality” is incompatible with Christian teachings by either leaving the ordained ministry or abandoning their call to ordination. They did not abandon the church, the church had abandoned them. In a demonstration of their integrity, faithfulness, and commitment to the church, they recruited others and formed Affirmation, United Methodists for Lesbian and Gay Concerns. I discovered them in 1979; the memory of their witness has been a continuing inspiration for me. 

Some of those witnesses have left us but many are still around, many have gone on to significant accomplishment in other arenas. Affirmation was the early foundation on which the reconciling movement was built. We do not need to know the history to observe that it is now a complex network that includes a great diversity of lgbt folks, as well as our parents and friends.

Poke around in the UMC a bit and you will see the movement’s impact. In addition to the many reconciling congregations and fellowships, you will discover the meaning of reconciliation being explored in congregations, Sunday school classes, choirs, student groups, conference groups, and even some of our national church agencies. Again and again we are rediscovering that the reconciliation we claim in Christ was not given to us to selectively dispense but a gift we are obligated to share with all, including lgbt folks. 

You will also discover retired bishops who have now found their prophetic voice urging the General Conference to change the Discipline. Our sitting bishops, having offered a call to action meant to renew the church, remain silent when it comes to lgbt folks; or, better said, ignoring the elephant in the room. (Even so, a confidential source reports that the bishops are seeking to halt church trials over lgbt issues because they have proven both embarrassing and too expensive.)

Explore a little further and you will discover that, despite occasional charges and trials in the past, some clergy and congregations have been long celebrating holy unions between same gender couples and, now that a number of civil jurisdictions allow marriage or civil unions without regard to gender, those are also being celebrated. Further, some conferences have been routinely approving candidates for ordination without regard to their sexual orientation, the incompatibility language being ignored.

If you are lucky you will find the joy of being a witness to the baptism of an adopted child of a same gender couple. It is increasingly common for a simple reason: How can you deny baptism to a child? As their same gender parents bring their child forward, grandparents, witnesses, and godparents join them, bearing witness to the meaning of family in a way that cannot be denied.

So, what’s the bottom line? Even though I confess to a bit of weariness, Sing a New Song gave me a chance to be thankful for what has been wrought. More important, I know I can be thankful for what is to come. I am excited by the new and young voices. I am moved by their boldness, willingness to claim loves and loyalties, and fearlessness in standing their ground. They have brought us a new song. It is worth singing.

---

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).

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).

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.

Putting the Lie Behind Us

by Peter L. DeGroote

As usual, Baltimore-Washington Area Reconciling United Methodists (BWARM) had proposed a resolution for Annual Conference. For the first time the opposition responded—with four.

Past debates over BWARM resolutions had been somewhere between crude and vulgar. LGBT folks were routinely characterized as sinners, predators, and worse, blighting the reputation of Annual Conference as a place where differences can be debated in harmony with God’s grace.

Despite the nastiness, BWARM was on a winning streak. It's resolution for each of the past three years had passed. In that light, the multiple resolutions from those who oppose changes in the Discipline seemed a shotgun attempt to pass at least one of their own rather than continue their losing streak. It also promised a debating circus. One lay delegate actually resigned in fear of the pain of those debates.

An alternative was found. Through the work of many, and several starts and stops, a motion was offered to table all of the resolutions concerning LGBT matters. Instead, we would have a panel discussion with three people who want to change the Discipline and three who do not. There were procedural hurtles but the motion passed overwhelmingly. A request from Conference youth to add one of their members was granted.

The motion set the panel’s discussion around two questions:

1. How can we as the church most effectively offer ministry and pastoral support to and for our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender sisters and brothers?

2. How can we as a connectional church relate to and work with each other as the body of Christ given our disagreements over this issue?

After 45 minutes of the panel discussion* we formed into small groups by turning our chairs so that we could discuss what we had heard and thought.

I felt quiet joy and a sense of accomplishment for all those people who, over many years, had helped us get this far. It was difficult to believe I was sitting in a hotel ballroom filled with United Methodists respectfully sharing and listening to each other’s views about the way the Discipline treats LGBT people.  The group I sat with had differences but spoke no harshness. Others reported a similar experience in their groups and of a general feeling that we had all learned from each other.

Something momentous had happened. An Annual Conference had overwhelmingly voted to transform a previously contentious and often hateful debate into a holy conversation in which God’s grace was apparent to all. In doing so it formally acknowledged that there are differences of opinion among us and that it is time to find a way for us to listen to and learn from each other. The intention to find a way forward, expressed in a formal Conference action, is foundational for the future.

I recalled the unwillingness of the last General Conference to do the same. Despite the evidence of a constantly growing number of Reconciling Congregations, years of proposed legislation, demonstrations on and off the floor (some with arrests), and the urging of many prominent UM leaders, the last General Conference refused to pass a resolution simply acknowledging that “Faithful, thoughtful people who have grappled with this issue deeply disagree with one another; yet all seek a faithful witness.” **

To be polite, the General Conference looked a little foolish. To be more accurate, the majority told a lie. For those of us in the Baltimore-Washington Conference the evidence was clear:

 

1. We remain a people of different minds about the treatment of LGBT people in the Discipline.
2. By acknowledging our differences we were able to come together in holy conversation to learn from each other.
3. All were able to join in the closing affirmation offered by our Bishop that we are all members of one body despite our differing views.

We found a way to put the lie behind us. Maybe the next General Conference can do the same.

_____________

*For the Conference news report and a commentary on the event see Pages 2 and 7 of this link:   http://www.bwcumc.org/files/umc_pdf_files/UMC_June16_web.pdf

**For the report on the General Conference action see
http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=3082929&ct=5315905&notoc=1

---

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).

The Tenth Anniversary of my Two Arrests at the 2000 General Conference in Cleveland

The late comedian Bob Hope used to sing "Thanks for the Memories" in his visits to soldiers around the world and in his stage appearances. I have said "no thanks" to my memories of my first arrest for civil disobedience in 1971. Then, I was a member of the New York chapter of the Jesse Jackson-led Operation Breadbasket and we conducted civil disobedience at the central office of A & P Super Markets in New York City. We were arrested, detained and then made court appearances that resulted in dismissal of the charges. One of my favorite photos is a picture of me with Jesse Jackson, arm-in-arm, coming out of Court after the dismissal. Many years after that arrest by A & P, I refused to enter any A & P Super Market, because I saw that as being an accomplice to their discrimination that led me to protest.

But, I am able to say, "Thanks for the memory" of my two arrests at the 2000 General Conference. The first arrest for civil disobedience outside the Convention Center with Soulforce and the second, when 29 of us nonviolently disrupted the proceedings of the Conference on the Conference floor. Why thanks?

There was an understandable reluctance on the parts of many of the Bishops and members of the General Conference Committee to ask the police to arrest fellow United Methodists. I don't know whether that had happened at a General Conference before. But, I do know that then and since then, some Bishops have shared with me how agonizing for them was that experience. I remember as I was being arrested thinking of those words spoken from the cross; "God forgive them for they know not what they do".

Although I have not forgotten those moments 10 years ago, I certainly carry no ill will for my United Methodist colleagues who had us arrested, or who offered no protests as we were being arrested. I remember with joy those Bishops who got arrested with us, and those who were in solidarity with us. The courage they expressed, has left a lasting impression with me. Although some friends, gay and straight, have left The United Methodist Church because of our language/legislation and because of those arrests in 2000, I have chosen to remain within the denomination to exercise my right of Freedom of Speech to protest our anti-gay policies. This is my way of being in solidarity with my sisters and brothers who have been deeply wounded by the Church they once loved.

Rosemary Bray McNatt, an African American clergywoman who is the Senior Pastor of the Fourth Universalist Society in New York has written an article; "We Must Change" that appears in the spring issue of UU World. What she writes about Unitarian Universalists, applies to United Methodists as well: "...for people who are blessed with the gift of free religious community, we are also cursed with a nasty little Calvinist streak that we would do well to examine. We would rather be angry and judgmental with one another and ourselves than be tender and merciful."

I suggest that there were signs of that "Calvinist streak" as some Methodists once justified and supported the enslavement of Black persons. That "streak" continued as Methodists "resolved" their disputes over slavery by having a "Unification Conference" in 1939 that established the racially segregated Central Jurisdiction. And, the long resistance to ordaining women in the Methodist Church has a Calvinist link.

Karen Armstrong in her; "The Battle For God, A History of Fundamentalism", writes this in an effort to explain the separating, segregating and excluding tendencies of some Christians; "Some people feel very threatened by pluralism, and they want to assert their identity more strongly than ever before, out of fear, by erecting new barriers. Fear is at the heart of fundamentalism - the fear of losing yourself. ...At the root of fundamentalism are nihilism, hopelessness and despair."

I am sure that not many if not all of the United Methodists who support our current restrictions on "the practice of homosexuality" and same gender couples, would call themselves Fundamentalists. So many of my United Methodist friends and colleagues who support our current Book of Discipline language do not fit Armstrong's definition of fundamentalism. But, some of them are beginning to share with me that they now realize that just as those before them were wrong to "use" Scripture to justify slavery, segregation and the denial of ordination to women, they now believe that the integrity of Scripture and the mission of the Church are being compromised as long as we maintain our present negative (Calvinist?) language and legislation.

Hymn 230 in The United Methodist Hymnal is "Are Ye Able". I believe at the General Conference of 2012 when the delegates consider again our current language/legislation in the Book of Discipline about homosexuality, same sex couples and ministry to and with them, there will be a God-given will to move from negativity to affirmation. Action and discussion in the military, in the Courts and Legislatures of some states that affirm the right to equality for same gender loving persons, cannot help but encourage the General Conference to begin anew its consideration of our previous actions.

Ours is a Methodist/United Methodist history of disavowing slavery, segregation and the denial of the ordination of women. We did that because some delegates took seriously: "Lord, we are able. Our spirits are thine. Remold them, make us, like thee, divine. Thy guiding radiance above us shall be a beacon to God, to love and loyalty."

There is so, so much, God would have The United Methodist Church do in the 21st century. We cannot allow that "doing" to be compromised by holding on to the same old language and legislation. "We Are Able", our history tells us so.

---

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.

"All Means All" --A Bridge Too Far?

By Peter L. DeGroote

The “All Means All” campaign was in support of an amendment to the UMC Constitution that sought to advance the Church's declaration that all persons are of sacred worth. It would have done so replacing the words without regard to race, color, national origin, status or economic condition with the word all. (See the "Background Summary" at the extended entry, below.)   

As of this writing it is unlikely to survive the amendment process. Hindsight suggests that may not be so bad.

The necessary 2/3 vote fell short in the Conference of which I am a member (Baltimore-Washington).  After the vote an African-American woman who is supportive of reconciling activities told me why she had voted against it.

She spoke of the long history of racism in the church. She recalled her mother’s joy when the new constitution of the UMC included without regard to race. She believes that the subsequent progress of African-Americans in the church grew out of that legal prohibition of racism. But she also pointed out that racism isn’t over and she was unwilling to risk anything slipping away. My response was a respectful silence.

Since then, I have concluded that if I had been in that woman’s shoes I would have done the same. It is clear we are not living in a post-racial society or church.

I also dislike hiding history. In the United States we celebrate the Declaration of Independence's proclamation that all men are created equal. At the time, it was more ideology to encourage revolutionary fervor than reality. Much of our national history can be seen as a journey to make that equality more of a reality.

Some prefer to write our history as a victorious and universally positive experience. Thankfully, there is a record of Constitutional amendments, laws, court decisions, etc that are keys to understanding the real story and remind us of how easily it would be to fall back into former ways of thinking and behaving. 

Similarly, the language without regard to race, color, national origin, status or economic condition in the UMC Constitution represents prohibitions made necessary by the church’s journey to make its declaration that all persons are of sacred worth more of a reality. 

The current rules that facilitate the abuse and oppression of LGBT people are also part of that history. Progress in the church is similar to progress in society. Once we come to honor and respect people we once abused and oppressed, we write a law or rule that protects them. Our history is found in the record of those changes; the proposed substitution risks losing some of that record. 

Many prefer to tell the church’s story in an always positive light. Recently we are hearing church leaders speak of “love of the church,” a Roman Catholic defensive tool that is clearly not in the Methodist tradition. Keeping our history alive and informed is as important as keeping our recollection of the Myth of the Garden alive. Both help to remind us of the mixture of good and evil in our human nature and institutions. We need to identify both if we are to have any light at all.