Reconciling Ministries Network

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.

Street Theatre Challenges Pastoral Leadership

by Peter L. DeGroote

Self-appointed “messengers” of God recently tried to get arrested by demonstrating in front of the Justice Department in Washington. Their goal was to use their arrest to challenge the protection of glbt from hate crimes by way of the 1st Amendment guarantee of free speech. (They see the law as a threat to their hate mongering.)

First, a summary: I am relying on the reporting of Dana Milbank writing in the Washington Post on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 under the title The Messengers of God can’t get arrested in this town. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/16/AR2009111603248.html)

Act 1: The “messengers” proclaimed such things as:

• Rev. Paul Blair: Anything other than sex "between a male and his wedded wife, is a perversion, and the Bible says that homosexuality is in fact an abomination."

• “Rev. Rick Scarborough, quoting Scripture, listed ‘homosexual offenders’ along with thieves, drunkards, swindlers and idolaters as those unwelcome in the kingdom of God. To fail to call homosexuals to repent of their sin and come to Jesus is the highest form of cowardice and sin."

• Rev. Jim Garlow: "Had people listened to our plea, there would be tens of thousands of people who had not died of a dreaded disease. This breaks our heart to see people die of AIDS."

Act 2: Milbank then notes that their “prayers were not answered. Nobody was arrested, which wasn't surprising: To run afoul of the new law, you need to ‘plan or prepare for an act of physical violence’ or ‘incite an imminent act of physical violence.’"

Act 3: Then the street theatre got interesting (again quoting from Milbank’s article):

• Instead of getting arrested, the ministers got something else: “A couple of dozen gay activists, surrounding them with rainbow flags and signs announcing ‘Gaga for Gay Rights’ and ‘I Am a Love Warrior.’ By the end, the gay rights activists had taken over the lectern and the sound system and were holding their own news conference denouncing the ministers.”

• Chuck Fazio, from DC Podiums “was hired by the religious conservatives to provide the sound system for the event, but upon learning of their cause, he decided to donate his proceeds to the gay rights activists and to give them a chance at the microphone before shutting down the amplifiers.”

Postscript: It seems like fun all around but I am troubled: 

• A reader gets the impression that these self-proclaimed “messengers” represent Christianity and the Church.

• I don’t know what reporter Dana Milbank knows about the deep divisions in the church over glbt issues but I do know that if we do not show up at these kinds of events we have only ourselves to blame if our views are not reported.

• The failure of any clergy to demonstrate a different perspective reinforces the views of those young people who claim that the church is a source of oppression.

• I didn’t know about it in advance. I’m retired but still closely connected to the reconciling activities of Foundry UMC. We know a lot of what’s going on. Still, we never heard about this. Had I known, I would have donned a collar, made a sign, called a few others, and gone. Our information systems need work.

While this event occurred in Washington, similar events take place in many communities. To one degree or another, my troubled thoughts apply to those events as well. However, not to be lost are the underlying challenges to pastoral leadership that need to be thought out.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell--Public Attitudes

by Peter L. DeGroote

For the Record: The House of Representatives held hearings on July 23rd on the "don't ask, don"t tell" policies of the military. The following news story of a survey of public attitudes is summarized without commentary.

Source: The Washington Post, Acceptance of Gay People in Military Grows Dramatically. Authors: Kyle Dropp and Jon Cohen, Washington Post Staff Writers, with the assistance of polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta. Saturday, July 19, 2008; Page A03

The article reports a Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted by telephone between July 10 to 13, among a random national sample of 1,119 adults. The overall survey has a sampling error margin of plus or minus three percentage points. Error margins are larger for subgroups.

The full article can be seen at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071802561.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Public attitudes about gays in the military have shifted dramatically since passage of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy 15 years ago.

• 75% of Americans said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military—that’s up from 62% in 2002 and from 44% in 1993.
• Breaking it down between Democrats, Republicans and independents: Majorities of each group also agree. Compare this to the opposition President Clinton got in 1993 for his campaign pledge to lift the ban on gay people in the military: 67% of Republicans and 75% conservatives opposed the idea, as did 56% of independents and 45% of Democrats.
• Support for openly gay men and lesbian women openly serving in the military has doubled over past 15 years.  Support from Republicans has doubled, from 32% to 64%. More than 80% of Democrats and more than 74% of independents and 66% of self-described conservatives are supportive.
• 57% of white evangelical Protestants, 82% of white Catholics, and 80% of those with no religious affiliation now support allowing openly gay service members in the military.
• Three-quarters of both married and single people support the idea, both significantly higher than in 1993.
• While 71% of veterans said gay people who do not declare themselves should be allowed to serve, the percentage drops to 50% for those who are open about their sexuality. Non-veterans, by contrast, are as likely to support those who "tell" as those who do not.
• Women are more supportive than men. More than 89% of women support allowing openly gay soldiers, compared with nearly two-thirds of men. Fifteen years ago, half of women supported this stance; nearly two-thirds of men opposed it.

Washington Blade: Letter to the Editor

This letter addresses the Washington Blade's article, United Methodist Church upholds anti-gay doctrinal statements.

Recent coverage of the General Conference of the United Methodist Church’s decision to uphold anti-GLBT statements in its Book of Discipline paints a rather one-sided picture of the 10-day gathering of United Methodists from around the globe.

While many actions taken by the church at this meeting were harmful to GLBT persons both inside and outside the church, it is important to recognize the many voices speaking out for equality as well as the positive steps the United Methodist Church did take this year, namely it:

dismissed all anti-transgender legislation by wide margins.

passed a constitutional amendment that declares “all persons” eligible for membership.

weakened the funding ban against homosexual caucuses to allow for financial support for activities that would help the church not “to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends.”

passed a resolution against heterosexism and homophobia.

voted in a new definition of family that recognizes “two parents” instead of “mother and father.”

created an ethics committee to monitor the action of lobbyists and delegates during General Conferences in the future.

installed a new judicial council comprised of members committed to fairness and integrity.

created a study commission for the worldwide restructuring of the church that gives the committee freedom to explore all options.

Despite what the church’s “official” proclamation might be, the United Methodist Church is not of one mind on issues concerning GLBT Christians. This is evidenced not only in the protests and actions led by Reconciling Ministries Network, Affirmation and Soulforce, among others, but also in the very close votes on many pieces of legislation.

Rather than dwell on the pain, we prefer to celebrate the hope we see in our church and the possibility for change in the future. The membership and participation in the Baltimore-Washington Area Reconciling United Methodists (B-WARM) — a group composed of individuals, both lay and ordained, congregations, and campus ministries in the Baltimore Washington region — continues to grow.

Our mission is to affirm lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and ensure the full participation of people of all sexual orientations and gender identities in the ministry and life of the United Methodist Church.

All are welcome to join us in praise and worship of our God whose grace surpasses understanding. We stand for equality. We stand for change. We stand for God’s love for all people.

ADAM BRIDDELL
Chair, B-WARM Steering Committee

Editors’ note: The Reconciling Congregations and Campus Ministries in the D.C. area include: Bethesda UMC (Baltimore), Capitol Hill United Methodist Church, Christ UMC, Dumbarton UMC, Foundry UMC, St. Luke’s UMC, St. John’s of Baltimore City UMC, American University Wesley Foundation and Howard University Wesley Foundation.