Well, it was bound to happen eventually. I've gotten sucked into blogging more regularly by sheer curiosity, opinionated-ness, and procrastinatory nature. And now I've started a blog for my church here, which possibly I should keep more separate, but what the heck. I love my little church up in northwest Denver, and I don't mind saying so. If you want to know what I'm involved with Sunday mornings (and Wednesday evenings, and a good number of hours in between), check it out: http://highlandsumc.blogspot.com. And if you're in the Denver area, come visit us sometime! We're really friendly!
P.S. A quick shout-out to "Jericho" of Jericho's Doghouse, who I found out has linked to my last post! (Okay, it's taken me this long to figure out how to show backlinks... but now there's no escaping my watchful eye! Mwahahahahahahahaha! [that's an evil laugh, in case you couldn't tell]) Thanks, friend! :)
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Open hearts, open minds, open... what?
The United Methodist Judicial Council released their decisions on a number of cases this week, two of which in particular have made news in many areas and caused a great deal of concern for some of us in the UMC. First, reversing a lower appeals court ruling that had reinstated Rev. Beth Stroud's clergy credentials, the Judicial Council returned to the original ruling that declared her, as an out lesbian in a covenant relationship, a "self-avowed practicing homosexual," and thus her clergy status was revoked once more (official news story from United Methodist News Service). This ruling saddened me, but did not greatly surprise me. The language in the Book of Discipline is pretty clear on the official stance of the UMC as far as LGBT persons and ordination are concerned, and although I strongly oppose that stance and will work to change it, the ruling by the Judicial Council is at least comprehensible to me under the circumstances.
The ruling in the second case, however, not only saddened me but greatly disturbed me, as it seems to contradict the constitution of our church, which includes the language of GRACE and INCLUSIVENESS as foundational to our collective identity. In this case, a pastor in Virginia had refused membership in the local church to a gay man who was already a participant in many activities, including the church choir, on the grounds that the layperson was gay and was in a relationship. A clergy colleague at the church disagreed with the decision and went through channels to have the pastor reprimanded and placed on involuntary leave by the clergy of the Virginia Annual Conference. The Judicial Council took issue with some rules and procedures relating to due process, but also addressed the substance of the case and found that the pastor in charge of a church "is solely responsible for making the determination of a person’s readiness to receive the vows of membership."
Now, to some extent, pastors have always had a fair amount of discretion in determining who is "ready" for membership in their churches, but this elevates that discretion to an alarming level. The logical conclusion is that the only non-criteria for membership - those which cannot be the basis for discrimination - are those outlined in the Constitution: "race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition"; this seems to suggest that a pastor could require prospective members to agree with her/his theological or political views, or could turn people away for any number of reasons that a church committed to grace and inclusiveness cannot reasonably support.
Furthermore, while our church officially holds that "homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching" (an objectionable statement in many different ways), we have also stated, "God’s grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons." This ruling flies in the face of these words from our Social Principles.
The small hints of good news in all of this? The Council of Bishops has released a pastoral letter that objects strongly to the ruling, lifting up the arguments and statements in the identified above. And I just attended a very moving and eloquent prayer vigil led by students, faculty, and staff from the Iliff School of Theology (my recent alma mater), held here in front of the Rocky Mountain Conference offices. Maybe United Methodist congregations that are welcoming will realize that the community may not know that, and will be bolder in their public witness to God's unconditional, accepting love.
And my District Committee back east just voted to recommend me to the Board of Ordained Ministry, to be considered for Commissioning as a Probationary Deacon next year. That's one more small step in the long road toward ordination. And the committee knows where I stand on this issue.
It saddens me that this church that I love seems to be moving in a more narrow-minded and legalistic direction. But as long as faithful people can recognize God's Spirit moving among us in the midst of change, and calling us forward to new interpretations of scripture and new understandings of what it means to be the Body of Christ, I think there's still hope. In the name of Christ who came to preach the good news of God's love to those on the margins, may it be so!
The ruling in the second case, however, not only saddened me but greatly disturbed me, as it seems to contradict the constitution of our church, which includes the language of GRACE and INCLUSIVENESS as foundational to our collective identity. In this case, a pastor in Virginia had refused membership in the local church to a gay man who was already a participant in many activities, including the church choir, on the grounds that the layperson was gay and was in a relationship. A clergy colleague at the church disagreed with the decision and went through channels to have the pastor reprimanded and placed on involuntary leave by the clergy of the Virginia Annual Conference. The Judicial Council took issue with some rules and procedures relating to due process, but also addressed the substance of the case and found that the pastor in charge of a church "is solely responsible for making the determination of a person’s readiness to receive the vows of membership."
Now, to some extent, pastors have always had a fair amount of discretion in determining who is "ready" for membership in their churches, but this elevates that discretion to an alarming level. The logical conclusion is that the only non-criteria for membership - those which cannot be the basis for discrimination - are those outlined in the Constitution: "race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition"; this seems to suggest that a pastor could require prospective members to agree with her/his theological or political views, or could turn people away for any number of reasons that a church committed to grace and inclusiveness cannot reasonably support.
Furthermore, while our church officially holds that "homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching" (an objectionable statement in many different ways), we have also stated, "God’s grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons." This ruling flies in the face of these words from our Social Principles.
The small hints of good news in all of this? The Council of Bishops has released a pastoral letter that objects strongly to the ruling, lifting up the arguments and statements in the identified above. And I just attended a very moving and eloquent prayer vigil led by students, faculty, and staff from the Iliff School of Theology (my recent alma mater), held here in front of the Rocky Mountain Conference offices. Maybe United Methodist congregations that are welcoming will realize that the community may not know that, and will be bolder in their public witness to God's unconditional, accepting love.
And my District Committee back east just voted to recommend me to the Board of Ordained Ministry, to be considered for Commissioning as a Probationary Deacon next year. That's one more small step in the long road toward ordination. And the committee knows where I stand on this issue.
It saddens me that this church that I love seems to be moving in a more narrow-minded and legalistic direction. But as long as faithful people can recognize God's Spirit moving among us in the midst of change, and calling us forward to new interpretations of scripture and new understandings of what it means to be the Body of Christ, I think there's still hope. In the name of Christ who came to preach the good news of God's love to those on the margins, may it be so!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)