Tag: LGBTQ+

Naming Samaritans (and why this is relevant in our current cultural/religious tensions)

“Why do we need to point out people’s ethnicity or sexuality?” “Why can’t we just say that we welcome all people?”  I’ve had this conversation recently and found it helpful to remember how Jesus called attention to particular identities – Samaritans, Gentiles, Women, Eunuchs. In all of these cases, the purpose of naming these identities, is not to push a “Samaritan Agenda,” (or fill in the blank with the other identities); the purpose is to stand with those who have been harmed and to go the extra mile in honoring them as beloved children of God – and to put these two purposes together in a way that illuminates the calling that comes from God through Christ.  

To use the term “Samaritan” as an illustration, we see multiple examples of this counter-cultural calling. In the famous parable of the Good Samaritan, we are given an example of how we are all to be good neighbors (Luke 10:25-36).  It was shocking to the religious ones who heard the parable. In the story of ten persons being “made clean” with only one returning to give thanks, we are directly told that this one was a Samaritan, and he became an example of not only being made clean but also being made well or healed. (Luke 17:11-19). 

To the shock of even his disciples, Jesus takes time to talk to a Samaritan woman at a well.  She becomes the first preacher, we might say, and many believed because of her testimony (John 4:1-42). And she is just one example of Jesus honoring women and giving them a place and a voice at the proverbial table (See Luke 8:2; 10:38; 23:55; Mark 7:24-30; John 4:39; Acts 1:14, 2:14-17, 8:12, 9:36, 16:14-15, 21:9; Rom 16:1; 16:3; Phil 4:2; Gal 3:28; and more).   

At one point Jesus is called a “Samaritan” and it is not meant to be a compliment.  This is followed by the accusation that he has a “demon within him.” This accusation occurs in a conversation with religious leaders who firmly believe that God is on their side. Jesus makes it clear that this practice of using religion to divide and judge only serves the “father of lies.”  (John 8:39-58).  

This big lie can be illuminated by what John Wesley called the “wildness of enthusiasm.”  In this condition, we confuse our own opinions and biases with the will of God.  In another place Wesley uses the term “bigotry” to describe this big lie.  He defines bigotry as an extreme attachment to one’s own party, opinion, or religion to the point of causing bitterness and division, often in the name of God.  Jesus names particular identities in the hopes of challenging this evil among us. 

As we address the religious tensions among us today, naming particular identities is challenging. Accusations of bias and bigotry flow from multiple sides.  It is true that Jesus treated all with honor and respect, wanting all to know God’s love and to be able to live into this love.  In this light, the scriptures make it clear that we are all one in Christ and that God shows no partiality (Gal 3:28; Acts 10:34).  And, from the other side, the scriptures also name particular identities, not to promote what we might call “secular agendas” but to call attention to the sin that divides and demeans, often in the name of God.  In Christ, both of these approaches can be true, for biblical truth is that which reveals love and opens the way for true togetherness. In the spirit of grace and truth, we can hold both of these perspectives together. (Alethia – John 17:17; I Cor 13:8; Eph 4:1-16; Col 3:5-17).  

My hope is that this analysis will help us all make good decisions about how to be more welcoming. How can we go the extra mile in showing Christ-like love and cultivating opportunities for all to grow in this love, without putting up barriers that get in the way?  May we find the courage to do this well. 

Pride and Protest (and being a Protestant with a Catholic Spirit)

As I wrote in my church newsletter – As an ally, parent, pastor, and friend I want to express my pride, using this word in its best sense, meaning to express honor, appreciation, and support. I am proud to be a part of a church that honors the sacred worth of all and is willing to stand with those who have been harmed because of their sexual and gender identity. I want to express my appreciation and give honor to all who strive to be who God has created them to be, and during this time, especially to those who have been turned into an issue and/or rejected when trying to be true to who they are as a child of God. As the popular Facebook meme for Pride Month says, “This pastor loves you.” 

It seems that this June is also becoming a month of Protest.  As your pastor, I want to speak to this as well. The word “protest” literally means to advance, proactively, a testament or witness.  The word is most often associated with a proactive testament against something, but this is often accompanied by a proactive hope as well.  For a protest to have moral power, it needs to be rooted in a commitment “for” something, not only “against” something. 

From a Methodist/Wesleyan perspective, we are called to be protestants (note the word protest) with a “catholic spirit.”  John Wesley used this term to promote universal (catholic) love for all.  He asked, “May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion?  We can if we understand that our calling is to “forward one another in love.”  This is what we are “for.”  We are “for” honoring one another, caring for one another, and building a community together, where our diversity is seen as a great blessing, and where we focus on values that are life-giving for all, rather than judging some by another standard. 

In light of calls by major Christian denominations to overturn Supreme Court Precedents on Marriage, and in light of active efforts to devalue beloved children of God and to cause harm seemingly only for political power, there is a need for people of faith to express both pride and to protest, recognizing that sometimes these are the same thing.  And for us, both must be expressed in a spirit of love – with patience, kindness, and a humility that does not insist on its own way.  Both must give witness to the peace in which we are all called.  We do both, trusting that God is at work for good.  Both Pride and Protest can be holy work.

2548.2 “If You Know You Know” or “History with an Eye to the Future”

The adage is true about being doomed to repeat history if we are not aware.  Thanks to a recent podcast hosted by Dr Ashley Boggan Dreff, our General Secretary of Archives and History, light has been shed on how paragraph 2548.2 in the Book of Discipline developed and how it has been used.  As one person said on the floor of the 1948 General Conference, “We all know what this is about,” even though the purpose was never specifically acknowledged. As “white flight” became a reality, this paragraph was added to deal with property where there was no longer a thriving “white” congregation.  Thoughts of revitalization and building diverse communities of faith may have been seeds in the hearts of some but were not a part of the collective hope at the time.  The only lens through which solutions were sought was the lens of segregation and a desire to maintain separation of races.

This paragraph authorized the United Methodist Church to be able to deed property to Pan-Methodist denominations or to other evangelical denominations.  In addition to the UMC, there are five other denominations within the Pan-Methodist Communion, all formed specifically for African Americans.  The largest of these is the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME).  While there may be elements of goodness in the motives, this goodness was also mixed with a complicity to sin.  Relational dynamics are still complicated in this way.  What can we learn and how might be grow in ways that glorify God?

Once again, the struggle is between inclusion and separation, only in a different context.  At issue is how we relate to certain persons who want to be a part of the church, who want to make a commitment to the values of the church and want to grow with other in the love of Christ and who might consider themselves a part of the LGBTQ+ community. On one side are those who believe we must approach matters of human sexuality with more humility and less judgment and, when it comes to marriage and relationships, focus on the virtues and values that are life-giving for all. Those calling for separation, want to draw much harder lines around traditional definitions of marriage, not only in terms of the values of faithfulness and love, but also in terms of gender and sexuality. Limiting relationship in this way is not seen as exclusion but as giving witness to what is truly good for all.

Concerning leadership, the lines are similar.  When discerning leadership, some want to focus on call and character, while others want provisions that could keep conversations about calling and character from ever being considered.  How a person looks and identifies is where the first line is drawn.   

Calls for separation come from those who cannot faithfully stay within a denomination that allows others to cross this line.  It is claimed that separation is needed so that all can practice faith in ways that are comfortable for them.  I can hear the line I heard often growing up, “They worship differently than we do.” 

To support the call for separation, some claim that this need for separation is about more than human sexuality.  It is popular to claim deep theological differences, often by highlighting extreme examples and then generalizing these examples to implicate the whole.  It is also interesting how extremes on the other side are ignored.  As we engage in this struggle at Annual Conference, we all need to be assured that there are not major attempts to change our core doctrine.  Doctrine is not what this is about. 

It is interesting how advocates of separation/division/schism have gravitated to this paragraph with such a morally complicated history.  This should give us all pause – first to reflect on what is right – and then to also notice the many other problems with using this paragraph.  Concerning the legislation built upon paragraph 2548.2 that we will likely see at Annual Conference: 1. The paragraph deals with transfer of property from one denomination to another. It does not create a process for congregations to disaffiliate.   2. The legislation binds the authority of the bishop, cabinet, and others listed in the paragraph.  Even if these parties agree, they cannot be bound to act in particular ways by legislation.  3.  The GMC as a denomination is not yet organized.  How can we approve a denomination before it exists and before we know if there will be any mutual recognition? We’ve heard representatives of the GMC say that they cannot enter into a communion agreement with the UMC until they have had a general conference that can make such a decision.  4.  The legislation will likely call for a simple majority vote as a possibility, relying on this paragraph that calls for a majority vote by both denominations (not local congregations).  The Judicial Council has already ruled that any disaffiliation must include approval by a 2/3 majority. (Decision 1379).  This is the standard for important decisions that have such effects on people.  One could point to the GMC Book of Doctrine and Discipline to see how this threshold is used for important decisions. In that book, the threshold of 3/4 is used for some decisions.

As United Methodist we live together under a trust clause that calls us into covenant together and is deeply rooted in our Wesleyan tradition and in scripture.   With this connection, each of us can go into any UMC and say, “I’m a part of this.” “This is my church.”  May we be careful and conservative about how we change this sense of trust and allow our churches to be transferred to another.   With this move we risk leaving whole communities without a United Methodist presence and perhaps without a congregation that represents the values we hold dear. Let us support those, in all congregations, who desire inclusion or are willing to live and worship together in a denomination that supports inclusion – the United Methodist Church. Let us all pause before we give this away.   What is this all really about?