Reconciling Ministries Network

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).

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).

Beyond the Hatred: First Love, First Loyalty

by Peter L. DeGroote

If any come to me and do not hate their own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—they cannot be my disciples.Luke:14;26 (SV).

1. About 50 pastors in a continuing education class were asked if they had ever preached on the above verse. Few hands went up. Nevertheless, Jesus appears to have said something very close to those words so we are obliged to look further.*    Two guidelines for biblical interpretation can help:

A. The first guideline: Variations in Jesus’ words from gospel to gospel often reflect the conditions in the communities out of which the various gospels came. 

• Many early Christian communities were racked with emotional turmoil over lost family relationships. Ancient peoples had no identity without family. Orphans often became beggars or bandits; some sold themselves into slavery in order to be part of a household, household often being a synonym for family.**

• Many early Christian converts were disowned by their families and persecuted by their communities. Some LGBT people have experienced similar rejection by family, friends, and congregation and we have struggled with the power or our emotional responses. 

• A harsh, even hateful reaction toward those who reject or persecute us is not uncommon, particularly when we have to go through the trauma of having to find new relationships and form new families. That is true for many LGBT folks, for many groups through history, and certainly for the early church.

B. The second guideline: Jesus' teachings are logically consistent, even if they challenge our understanding (or wishes). For this reason, use of the word "hate" raises a red flag.

• Recall Jesus’ prime directive, the rule of love . 

• Primary to the rule of love is the forgiveness of others. (Forgive us…as we forgive them…). Hatred forfeits forgiveness and contradicts the rule of love.

2, Any who have experienced rejection and persecution from families, friends, and congregations understand the emotional turmoil that can lead to the feelings of “hate” expressed in this verse. It is reasonable to conclude that this use of the word “hate” arises out of the emotional turmoil of broken relationships and subsequent persecution of those early community members. 

3. But something remains; a spiritual message at the heart of the verse. Where Old Testament prophets spoke of idolatry in the form of pagan religious images, Jesus spoke of idolatry in the form of human values and loyalties interfering with his Way of living in harmony with God and God’s creation. 

4. Today we are challenged by loyalties demanded by our employment, social class, neighborhood, political party, nation, and even our religious denomination or community. More often than not, these create divisions between people, even hatreds. (The daily news is sufficient evidence.) 

6. We are called to choose a Way of life that is often costly for our relationships, careers, and personal security. We can easily doubt that calling because living in harmony with God and God’s creation can seem unrealistic when many about us are doing otherwise. But we are called to learn to live in harmony even with those who would criticize, demean, and persecute us. That’s called reconciliation. It’s easier to write about than to do.   

_________________
*   The saying appears in Luke and twice in Thomas (55 & 101. That suggests its source is in a lost collection of sayings that the authors of Mark, Matthew, and John were unaware of or chose not to use. However, there is a significant variation in Matthew (55:1): Those who love father and mother more than me are not worthy of me…  Perhaps Matthew’s authors knew the saying source but were also uncomfortable with the word “hate.” However, Matthew’s context is much different from Luke’s. 
There are, of course, other passages which call us to first loyalties but I find this one worth noting because so many LGBT folks can identify with the emotions involved.

**The ancient family could:
• Demand absolute loyalty and obedience in a patriarchal structure.
• Often aggressively competed with others as many businesses do today.
• Were often the source of hatred and violence directed toward other families in what we call clan warfare.

---

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).

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 Fear of Church and Some Consequences

By Peter L. DeGroote

At yesterday’s BWARM* gathering a participant said the church is one of the most dangerous places an LBGT person can go. He was emphasizing the importance of clergy and leaders carving out a safe place of welcome in otherwise hostile congregational environments.

That was followed by stories pointing to another reality: Very often clergy are the source of the danger; that through sermons and attitudes clergy plant the seeds of rejection and hatred rather that a sense of honor and respect (love) for all creation.

Overall, the program produced a positive discussion of personal/family/church relations but stories from fear frequently popped up. We heard how growing up in the church had been an experience of fear; several heads nodded in agreement. We heard an outraged straight man tell of friends being beaten down by clergy and other church leaders. A seminary student, sitting next to his wife who was holding their newly born baby, worried about the influence of those churches in which they would have to raise their son—would they be reconciling congregations? What seeds would they sow? We heard a story of one man who had come to know gay and lesbian folks finding himself standing up in a church meeting to tell his pastor that his hateful speech about gay folks was a lie.

Afterward some of us old-timers reflected together. One, who has been a leader in reconciling activity for many years admitted that even now when he goes to church or a denominational gathering he has a set of defensive tools all shined up and ready to use. He is keenly aware that some resent his opinions, the fact that he has a voice in church and denominational affairs, and even his presence.

Another old-timer spoke of having to go elsewhere for spiritual strength and solace because he could no longer find those things in the church. His many years of fighting had resulted in his coming to see the church as just another social institution producing negative social values and, therefore, in need of change. He could fight those battles in any institution but remained in the church because that is where he learned to fight them; but his spiritual health comes from elsewhere.

When I got home I pondered where I stood in all of this. Being an old-timer myself, I share some of the feelings of those two old-timers described above. But I also feel something far more disconcerting. I have dealt with the fear, the rejection, the negative attitudes, and sometimes outright hatred as a pastor and preacher. That meant I had to face all of that in the context of biblical and theological understanding. In doing so I have come to realize the vacuity, self-centeredness, and institutional defensiveness that is at the center of so much of our practice, policy, and even our creedal declarations.

I am frequently reminded of the early churches recollection of Jesus’ attitude toward religious institutions: You religious leaders, you impostors! Damn you! You slam the door of Heaven’s domain in people’s faces. You yourselves don’t enter, and you block the way of those trying to enter. (Matthew 23:13with a slight modification to the translation by Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar.)

*BWARM=Baltimore Washington Area Reconciling United Methodists.

---

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).

Sly and Simple

By Peter L. DeGroote

“…for the children of this world exhibit better sense in dealing with their own kind than do the children of the light.”  Luke 16:8b

“…Jesus would advise them: Be as sly as snakes and as simple as doves.” Matthew 10:16

Both are from that collection of Jesus’ comments that are usually overlooked. The biblical text demonstrates that even the early church had interpretive difficulties. Two recent events have me looking at them in a new way.

First: The ELCA (Lutherans) recently decided to ordain openly gay people. In the background is a story about church trials. UMs know that church trials are very expensive, $100,000 being the minimum cost in most of our conferences. (They require hotels for all concerned, lawyers, witnesses, etc.). Organized differently, Lutheran trials are conducted on a national scale but just as expensive. It seems that a large number of clergy (up to the high 80s) “came out” in one way or another. A barrage of church trials would have been necessary at a cost that threatened to consume a great deal of the national income. Ordination seemed a better way to go. This was in the context of multi-year process which also involved all of the normal tools of teaching, preaching, meditation, and prayer—but the cost was a new element that the unconvinced could not ignore.

Second: The Roman Catholic Church was a strong opponent of gay rights legislation when it was first introduced in the New York State legislature. In response, supporters prepared legislation that would have eliminated the statute of limitations for sexual crimes, a shield behind which the Roman Catholic Church protects itself from further financial losses arising from priestly sexual abuse. A compromise was reached. (This is not to be confused with the recent marriage equality legislation.)

Many prefer to avoid this kind of strategy as tasteless “hardball” politics that has no place in the spiritual life of the church. Instead, we are urged to seek a “come, let us reason together” or a “preaching, teaching, praying approach,” believing that others will come to see our point of view or that the spirit will somehow join our efforts to transform those with whom we disagree. Jesus seems to be telling us that there will be times when we need to “exhibit better sense” than relying on a simple trust in the lessons of reconciliation, compassion, and forgiveness.

The Parable of the Widow and the Unjust Judge comes to mind.(Luke 18:1-8) Jesus’ lessons on human relations do not call for nagging. Nevertheless, the parable suggests that when dealing with an official unconcerned with God, people, or justice that it would be better to understand just what that official might respond to. In that world a woman constantly going to a judge’s house to loudly nag in a way that the entire town could see and hear was a way of accomplishing justice. 

Even so, when “exhibiting better sense,” it is important that we not lose our identity; that we not lose the simplicity of honoring and respecting all of God’s creation, even those who are in opposition to us. When using the slyness and energy symbolized by the snake in advancing justice, let’s not get carried away with it, proud of it, or corrupted by it. The purpose of a just society remains fairly simple and clear, and we should remain the same, as simple as doves. 

---

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).

Once More Into the Battle!

Reported by Peter L. DeGroote

Dean Snyder, Senior Pastor at Foundry UMC in Washington, DC has been a supporter of reconciling ministries since before there was any organized reconciling effort. During his State of the Church sermon this year he included a statement of three personal goals, one of which is focused on changing the UMC Book of Discipline. Below is that portion of the sermon with only minor editing, reproduced with his permission. You can see the entire sermon at:  http://www.foundryumc.org/sermons/11_15_09.htm.

From Dean Snyder's Sermon:

The claim that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching” was put into the UMC Book of Discipline in 1972, the year I graduated from seminary and served my first full-time appointment. It happened on my watch and I intend to do everything possible to fix it on my watch.

The way ahead is not clear. We have worked so hard for so long to change the United Methodist Church and the progress doesn’t feel anywhere commensurate with the effort.

I’ll be honest. I can’t see the way anymore. I can’t see how we will get to where we need to go.

I can’t see it but I do believe this: if we continue to work, if we continue to educate, to legislate, to agitate, to protest, to dialogue, to love… a breakthrough will come. I think it is going to be a breakthrough that will surprise us and I am believing it will happen during the next five years. 

I don’t know what it will be but I believe it will happen.

Did you know that Rosa Parks was not the first African-American to get arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a bus in the South to a white person?  Irene Morgan was arrested in 1946; Sarah Louise Keys in 1955. Nine months before Rosa Parks 15-year-old Claudette Colvin refused to move from her seat on the same Montgomery, Alabama bus system.

Rosa Parks was not the first, but, for reasons no one completely understands, when she did it there was a breakthrough. No one could have known it in advance.

In 1964 African-American Methodists had been working for 24 years to end the central jurisdiction—the structure of segregation in the Methodist Church. They had educated, they had dialogued, they had organized, they had legislated, they had protested. Then during the 1964 annual conference Methodists were voting on a resolution to merge with the Evangelical United Brethren Church. A young reserve delegate from west Texas got up to the microphone and offered an amendment to the merger resolution saying that the Methodist Church should not take the structures of segregation into the merged church, and the resolution won. It was a breakthrough. No one would have ever predicted it would happen. By the way, the young reserve delegate who made that resolution was William Astor Kirk, our own Bill Kirk.

(Many did not know this about Bill. In attendance at the 11:00am service, the congregation rose as one in a long and grateful ovation.)

There is a story in the book of Judges in which God sent the Israelites into battle against the Benjaminites. The Israelites lost; twenty-two thousand Israelites died in that battle—in a battle God sent them into. The Israelites mourned and wept that night.  

The next day God sent the Israelites to fight against the Benjaminites again. The Israelites wept before the Lord and they inquired of the Lord, “Must we go up against the Benjaminites again?” The Lord told them to go into battle again. They lost again. 18,000 Israelites died.

The Israelites wept and mourned and asked the Lord not to send them into battle again. The Lord said, “Go up, for tomorrow I will give them into your hands (Judges 20: 19-48).”

Sometimes God sends us into battles we will lose. Sometimes we lose the battle again and again. There are casualties. We weep and mourn and ask God to not send us into battle anymore. I don’t know why God sends us into battles we will lose.

But then God says, “Go up one more time, for tomorrow I will give them into your hands.”

There will be a breakthrough. I know we are tired. We are grieved, but tomorrow God will give them into our hands.

It is because of this kind of commitment that I am both glad and proud to regard Rev. Dean Snyder as a leader, a co-worker, and a friend.

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.

A Memoir on the Day Hate Crime Legislation was Signed

By Peter L. DeGroote

I am sitting in an office at Foundry United Methodist Church. Six blocks down the road, President Obama is signing legislation adding sexual orientation and gender identity to our hate crimes laws. It has been 30 years since passage of the original hate crimes law (1979) and 13 years since the last failed attempt at amendment. (This amendments includes protection based on gender and for those with disabilities and adds resources to help local governments investigate hate crimes.)

The original law came as part of the civil rights tide that washed over this country during the 60’s and 70’s. That was when we began to understand our oppression was also a denial of our civil rights.

People began to come out. The public reaction often seemed like a game of whack-a-mole. Whenever someone decided to live a more authentic life by being honest about his or her sexual identity there were many around ready to knock them back into silence and conformity. That included family and police. Law enforcement was an openly hostile institution just as capable of rendering violence as others.

I joined Foundry in 1980, a year after passage of the original hate crimes legislation. During the early years of that decade little footprints were painted on the sidewalks of the DuPont Circle neighborhood in which Foundry is located. They marked the spot where gay men had been physically attacked and, in a few cases, murdered.

The violence had a profound impact on the entire neighborhood. It is one reason Foundry is a Reconciling Congregation and why most of the nearby churches have an open and welcoming attitude toward LGBT folks. Being a witness to violence, or knowing someone who has been beaten or killed, or realizing that such an act occurred just down the street calls up human capacities of compassion as well as questions about what it is we mean by justice.

During this time some of us who were members of Foundry began a bible study program that, after several years, launched a congregational discussion that ultimately led to Foundry’s becoming a Reconciling Congregation. Later, as clergy I had the privilege of being appointed to Foundry for a couple of years, one of which included the 10-year anniversary of the passage of the Reconciling resolution.

By then discussions had gone much further. The language of gay/lesbian was gone. The initials had grown to LGBTI. The term sexual preference, suggesting that we make a choice in our affectional ties/attractions was finally abandoned. In its place was sexual orientation. Gender identity emerged as term describing personal characteristics that many of us had to learn about—and many of us are still learning.

Along with all of those developments was emergence of the clear understanding that those tools by which we were being oppressed had to do with civil rights. In addition to hate crimes protection, we seek rights to military service, protection from discrimination in housing and employment, and marriage equality.

Civil rights are the product of the civil society, os which the church is only a member. The UM Church, claims it is committed to upholding the civil rights of all people to include LGBT people. We’ll get the civil rights, then we’ll see what the church does.  

Now, as a retired pastor, I am once more sitting here in the DuPont Circle neighborhood, in an office at Foundry, assisting in an interim way, only for a few weeks. On this fateful day I should celebrate but I feel strangely quiet. Maybe that will change tomorrow evening when we all go down the road just a little to Asbury United Methodist Church where DC clergy in support of the proposed marriage equality law in Washington have called us to join in Soulful Voices for Marriage Equality—a Faith Celebration.

The beat goes on!