untiedmethodist.com

Baltimore-Washington Conference passes resolution opposing Decision 1032

Conference affirms Open Doors to everyone

BY MELISSA LAUBER

By a vote of 392 to 352, members of the Baltimore-Washington Conference approved a resolution to prohibit discrimination in receiving members in its UM congregations.

The resolution, endorsed by 12 churches and brought forth by the Baltimore-Washington Area Reconciling United Methodists (B-WARM), followed Decision 1032 of the Judicial Council of The United Methodist Church, which supported a Virginia pastor’s refusal of membership to a person because the aspiring member is a homosexual.

The resolution, passed May 26,  calls upon Baltimore-Washington Conference to declare Decision 1032 “inconsistent with Christian teaching” and to “expect and encourage” its congregations to “abide by the principle: Membership in any local church in the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference shall not be denied on the basis of race, color, national origin, economic condition, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, ability or disability, or any other status.”

Those in favor urged members to remember that Jesus consistently preached that the kingdom of God is open to everyone, and that grace should be extended, through the church, to everyone. The church, they said, should not be gatekeepers of God’s love.

Those opposed to the amendment stressed that it was redundant, that area churches are already open to all, and expressed concerned that the amendment was inconsistent with the United Methodist Book of Discipline, or church law, which refers to homosexuality as “incompatible with Christian teaching.”

Following the vote, Bishop John R. Schol led the conference in prayer. “Sweet Jesus, continue to lead us, continue to guide us, continue to forgive us, continue to believe in us,” he prayed. “We want nothing but the best for our church.”

Here is the text of the resolutiuon:

RESOLUTUON TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION IN RECEIVING MEMBERS INTO UNITED METHODIST CONGREGATIONS

WHEREAS, the United Methodist Church (UMC) acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth; and WHEREAS, The United Methodist Church (UMC) has historically welcomed into membership “all persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition” per Article IV of the Constitution; and

WHEREAS, in its Decision 1032 the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church supported one UMC pastor’s refusal of membership to a person seeking membership because of the “aspiring member’s sexual orientation and practice”, and overruled decisions by the district superintendent, bishop, and the Annual Conference clergy session requiring that the pastor welcome this individual into membership; and

WHEREAS, the UMC Bishops unanimously stated in a November 2, 2005 Council of Bishops Pastoral Letter that “homosexuality is not a barrier [for membership] …and … the General Conference has clearly spoken through the denomination’s Constitution on inclusiveness and justice for all as it relates to church membership”;(1) and quoted from paragraph 161g of the Book of Discipline: “… 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;” and

WHEREAS, the Council of Bishops Pastoral Letter (Nov. 2, 2005) further affirmed “our Wesleyan practice that pastors are accountable to the bishop, superintendent, and the clergy on matters of ministry and membership”(2); and

WHEREAS, The United Methodist Church has implemented the advertising strategy “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors” to welcome newcomers and win disciples for Christ; and

WHEREAS, John Wesley preached that the church is the means of dispensing the grace of God to all who seek it; Romans 15:7 says “Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you”; Mark 10:14 says “But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God”; 1 Corinthians 12:13a says “For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body”; Galatians 3:28 says “There is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus”; and John 13:35 says “everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

Now, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church believes that Judicial Council Decision 1032 is inconsistent with Christian teachings, and contrary to the United Methodist Church Constitution;

and Be it FURTHER resolved, that from this day forward, the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference will model inclusive behavior by expecting and encouraging its congregations and clergy to abide by the principle: Membership in any local church in the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference shall not be denied on the basis of race, color, national origin, economic condition, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, ability or disability, or any other status.

Endorsed by:
Capitol Hill UMC, Washington, DC
St. John the Evangelist UM/Presbyterian
Christ UMC, Columbia, MD Church, Columbia, MD
Dumbarton UMC, Washington, DC
St. John’s of Baltimore City UMC
Emmanuel UMC, Laurel, MD
St. Luke’s UMC, Washington, DC
Foundry UMC, Washington, DC
University UMC, College Park, MD
Grace UMC, Baltimore, MD
Wesley UMC, Washington, DC
Wesley Grove UMC, Gaithersburg, MD

A call for a special session of General Conference

November 2, 2005

The following resolution was passed by the Board of Ordained Ministry of the Baltimore Washington Conference of the United Methodist Church:

Whereas Judicial Council Decisions 1031 and 1032 create confusion about the role and responsibilities of pastors, cabinets, bishops, Boards of Ordained Ministry and clergy sessions on matters of local church membership:

Therefore the Board of Ordained Ministry of the Baltimore Washington Conference calls on the Council of Bishops (according to ¶14 Article II of the 2004 Book of Discipline) to call for a special session of General Conference to be held as soon as possible to clarify the authority and accountability of pastors, cabinets, bishops, Boards of Ordained Ministry and clergy sessions as to whom may be received as member of our churches.

This resolution shall be communicated to the officers of the Council of Bishops and Bishop Schol meeting at Lake Junaluska.

Approved at 11:50 AM on November 2, 2005

Judical Council decisions are outrageous

I am grateful for the faithful witness of the Rev. Beth Stroud and other LGBT United Methodists during these difficult days. Our denomination is resisiting the movement of God toward full inclusion and reconciliation. Decisions (1027 and 1032) issued recently by the United Methodist Judicial Council are outrageous. They demonstrate that this Judical Council is determined -- no matter what --  to discriminate against LGBT United Methodists.   

Decision 1032 is the worst. Other rulings about sexual orientation issues will be embarrashing to almost everyone when they read them 2o years from now. Decision 1032 --which permits pastors to deny church membership based on sexual orientation, and perhaps for pretty much any reason -- is embarrashing now to anyone who has a basic grasp of the English language.

The ruling hinges on our understanding of the word "may." Read what the Judicial Council has said:

Paragraph 214 [of the Book of Discipline] states: "Eligibility – The United Methodist Church is a part of the holy catholic (universal) church, as we confess in the Apostles' Creed. In the church, Jesus Christ is proclaimed and professed as Lord and Savior. All people may [emphasis added] attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments and become members in any local church in the connection . . . . ” The operative word in connection with the phrase "become members in any local church in the connection" is "may." Decision 930 established the premise that "shall" cannot be used to replace "may" in the Discipline. Thus the General Conference has determined that any person “may” become a member of any local church in the connection.

This is a most amazing and twisted way to interpret the word "may" in this circumstance. The council's argument makes no sense.

Yes, the word "may" is permissive, but in this case the subject of the verb "may" is clearly "all people," not the pastor or local church. It is "all  people"  who  may "become members in any local church in the connection."

The Judicial Council's argument that the Discipline does not say "shall" is nonsensical. What sense would it make to substitute "shall" for "may".  Then the sentence would read: "All people shall attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments and become members in any local church in the connection . . . ” 

Obviously the two alternatives here are not "may" or  "shall," but "may" or "may not."  If the Book of Discipline does not mean to allow "all people" to choose to join our churches, it should say, "All people may or may not ... become members in any local church in the connection . .  . ”

I do strongly agree with one statement in Decision 1032: "may means may." Yes, it does. And "all people may ... become members of any local church in the connection ..."  May means may.

In Decision 1027, the Judicial Council argues that Beth Stroud's orginal trial was fair because she was not discriminated against due to her status. This is what the Judicial Council says about this:

The lack of a definition for “status” does not deny Rev. Stroud due or fair process. She can and has asserted that her ministerial office has been jeopardized because of the fact that she is a practicing homosexual and has argued that such action violates constitutional provisions to ensure the inclusiveness of the church. We hold that ¶ 304.3 is not directed at the status of being a homosexual or having a particular sexual orientation. No provision of the Discipline bars a person with a same-sex orientation from the ordained ministry of The United Methodist Church. Rather ¶ 304.3 is directed towards those persons who practice that same-sex orientation by engaging in prohibited sexual activity. Likewise, persons who have a heterosexual orientation who practice that orientation in prohibited ways – by not practicing fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness as required by ¶ 304.2 – are subject to chargeable offenses. Regulation of practice does not violate the “status” provisions of the Constitution.

To say that some clergy are denied the joys and comforts of human love, marriage and family while others are permitted such is discriminatory. Straight clergy are required to be faithful. Gay and lesbian clergy are required to be celebate. What about this isn't a double standard?

So today some of us are appropriately outraged. May our outrage fuel the struggle for justice, inclusion, and reconciliation.

Church and Society Board calls for end of U.S. presence in Iraq

The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society has issued the following statement:

A Call to End the U.S. Military Presence in Iraq

As followers of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, we pray for peace, stability and freedom in Iraq. We believe the Iraqi peoples can and should ultimately determine how it will be achieved. It is time for the United States to appeal for international cooperation, not in waging war but in working with Iraqis of good will to set their nation on the course toward peace and prosperity.

As people of faith we raise our voices in protest against the tragedy of the unjust war in Iraq. We urge the United States government to develop and implement a plan for the withdrawal of its troops. The U.S. invasion has set in motion a sequence of events which may plunge Iraq into civil war. 

Every war is a tragedy that wounds the heart of God. This particular war is especially tragic in that a bi-partisan U.S. commission appointed by President Bush and chaired by former Governor Tom Keane and former Representative Lee Hamilton has established that:

·         No weapons of mass destruction were stored in Iraq;

·         There was no attempt on the part of the government of Saddam Hussein to purchase uranium from the nation of Niger;

·         There were no ties between Saddam Hussein and the events of September 11, 2001;

·         There were no ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Thousands of lives have been lost and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in a war the United States initiated and never should have fought. The United States is now morally obligated to provide the vast economic resources needed to aid in the post-war reconstruction of Iraq. The ongoing cost of the war continues to drain public resources that are desperately needed in Iraq as well as in the United States. We grieve for all those whose lives have been lost or destroyed in this needless and avoidable tragedy. Military families have suffered undue hardship from prolonged troop rotations in Iraq and loss of loved ones. It is time to bring them home. 

Our opposition to the war in no way diminishes democratic ideals, traditions or the very freedoms the men and women of the military defend. Opposition to war is not unpatriotic. We honor those who serve the common good and owe them a commitment to pursue the peaceable path that they may not be put in harm’s way again.

We call upon the U.S. Congress to adopt legislation such as the “Homeward Bound Act” (H. J. Res. 55), the first bipartisan effort to bring home U.S. troops. We encourage them to make a full investigation and hold accountable those responsible for the misleading ‘intelligence’ and disastrous decisions that fueled this war.

We call upon the U.S. government to fully cooperate with the United Nations and its envoy and special representative in Iraq to bring about a peaceful, long-term resolution to the conflict and to rebuild Iraq. 

Finally, we call upon all people of faith to pray for a just, equitable peace for the beleaguered people of Iraq and all those whose lives have been damaged by the consequences of this war.

Rev. Donald Sensing on Opposing the Iraq War: Part Two

The Rev. Donald Sensing, a United Methodist pastor and retired Army officer, blogs at One Hand Clapping. In the interest of considering diverse viewpoints on the war, I ask him to respond to some questions about the War in Iraq. Here is a second installemt of his reply:

Late last month, Dean was kind enough to publish my answer to his question on whether I was serious about my claim that peace protesters do not have good intentions, and that peace is actually not on their agenda. That posting is here.

I understood Dean’s question to be focused on the organized demonstrators such as those sponsored by ANSWER and affiliated groups, and that is how I wrote my response.

In this post I want to move away from “demonstrators” per se and examine whether the invasion Iraq could have been opposed beforehand with good intentions. The issue of what to support (or oppose) now that we are in Iraq is not part of this essay. Dean has asked me to write about that also but in this essay I will look back at the situation leading up to the invasion of March 2003.

Again I will distinguish, as did Dean’s question to me, the invasion of Iraq from the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Even the United Metrhodist Church’s Council of Bishops endorsed the Afghanistan campaign, albeit grudgingly.

I pointed out previously that demonstrators against the Iraq war consisted basically of only two types: those who oppose America no matter what, of which the streets have been full, and those who oppose not America but the current president of America. The demonstrators, almost without exception, have consisted of these two factions, the anti-America and the anti-Bush/anti-Republican groups. There have been a few demonstrators who oppose the war who are by no means anti-American and are indifferent to Bush or the Republicans themselves, but they are very few of the marchers.

So there was (and still is) opposition to the Iraq war from purely ideological and political motivations. The question for this essay is whether one could have opposed the then-looming Iraq war in 2002 and 2003 from a basis that was neither ideologically anti-American nor overtly partisan-political.

Christian pacifism would fit this bill, of course. The American Society of Friends (the Quakers) and the Mennonites have been historically pacifists but no reasonable claim can be made that their opposition to the Iraq war was anti-American or partisan political. I happen not to believe that pacifism is a morally sustainable position, but that’s a topic for another essay, perhaps.

So on what other basis could “loyal” opposition to the Iraq war have been made? Let me state what I am sure there will be universal agreement on: that the decision to go to war is not a “default” decision, but one that must be taken only after meeting a very high burden of evidence in its favor. Going to war is not simply one option among many, but an option of severe consequences and very grave import. As I have written on my own site, embarking on a war is like entering a dark room blindfolded.

Yet to say this is not to say that opposition to the Iraq war had no case to make. The debate was not and should not have been judicial in nature, in which the entire burden of proof rests on one side and none at all on the other. If it was true that the administration needed to make an exceptional case to go to war, it is also true that opponents of going to war needed to make a positive case for addressing the legitimate security concerns of the country by means short of war.

This was exactly the moral and religious conundrum that the authors of Sojourners magazine found themselves in. Before the invasion, Peter Ackerman and Jack DuVall wrote there that given the realities of Saddam and his regime, “anyone who opposes U.S. military action to dethrone him has a responsibility to suggest how he might otherwise be ushered out the backdoor of Baghdad.”

In my view, the case for making war against Saddam’s regime had to meet both of two criteria:

1. The traditional criteria of Just War theory of historic Christian thought, and

2. Demonstrate that the national-security interests of the United States would be served in a way that not toppling the regime would not serve.

I believe that the war did and does meet both criteria, but (begging your pardon for saying this again) that is a topic for another post Dean asked me to write. Here I want to point out that non-ideological, nonpartisan opposition to the Iraq war was also made on one of those two bases.

First, there were some who claimed that no adequate casus belli has been demonstrated for which war against Iraq was justified. Since one of the strong tenets of Just War theory is that war may be undertaken only for justified causes, the lack of adequate casus belli would undercut the war’s justification. There were others who claimed that even with just cause, the war would not be fought justly, that the destruction of innocent lives would be so great that it would overwhelm even the justice of the cause or the outcome. And finally, there were others who based their opposition on anticipating that the outcome of the war would prove unjust. These were oppositions based on Just War theory and such objections should be soberly considered by Christian people.

Second, there were some who claimed that the strategic interests of the United States would be ill served by invading Iraq and that Saddam’s threat could be contained in other ways. However, it was very rare that any of these objectors could describe those other ways, even when they included leading figures of previous Democratic or Republican administrations.

I want to explicate more on strategic thinking and how Just War theory relates to it – the “metaphysic” of the process – before dealing with the specifics of how the invasion of Iraq met both Just War and strategic criteria, but to honor Dean’s request for reasonably short essays I’ll stop here. The main thing I wanted to relate here was that it was possible reasonably to oppose the invasion of Iraq without allying oneself with America’s enemies or being an anti-American or anti-Bush ideologue. In the future I will write about why those objections fell short of persuasiveness and why I think the administration met the criteria test.

PRESS RELEASE: FOUNDRY CHURCH TO WORSHIP IN SOLIDARITY WITH LESBIAN CLERGYWOMAN

Foundry United Methodist Church will hold a service of solidarity with the Rev. Beth Stroud the evening before the denomination’s top court considers whether to uphold a verdict restoring her ordination.

The service will be held in the church sanctuary at 16th and P Streets in northwest  Washington, D.C., on Wednesday evening Oct. 26 at 7 p.m. It will feature the video presentation of the sermon preached by Rev. Stroud at the recent “Hearts on Fire” convocation sponsored by the Reconciling Ministries Network.

A prayer service will be held at the church at 10 a.m. Thursday Oct. 27, the hour when arguments for and against her ordained ministry will be presented to the United Methodist Judicial Council.

Stroud, assistant pastor of First United Methodist Church of Germantown in Philadelphia, Pa., stated in a sermon and in a letter to the 1,000-member congregation that she is “a lesbian living in a committed relationship with a partner.”

Bishop Peter Weaver, then presiding bishop of the Eastern Pennsylvania Annual  Conference, filed a complaint against her, charging her with violating the denomination's prohibition against "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" in the ordained ministry. In a church trial last December, Rev. Stroud was found guilty and  lost her clergy credentials.   

On April 29, the denomination's Northeastern (US) Jurisdiction Committee on Appeals overturned the trial court's verdict and penalty, citing legal errors, and restored Stroud's clergy standing. The next week, Bishop Marcus Matthews, then presiding bishop of the area, filed an appeal against the jurisdictional committee's decision with the Judicial Council, the denomination's top court.

Arguments regarding the appeal will be heard Oct. 27 at 9 a.m. CDT at First United Methodist Church in Houston, Tex. Representatives of the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference and Rev. Stroud will be allowed 30 minutes each to present their arguments. Deliberations in closed session will follow the hearing.

The Judicial Council normally does not release information about its decisions until the conclusion of the full meeting, which is scheduled for  Oct. 29.

For more information, contact the Rev. Dean Snyder, senior minister of Foundry United Methodist Church at 202-332-4010.

The War in Iraq -- Q and A with Bishop Klaiber of Germany

Bishop Walter Klaiber (pictured left) retired this past March after serving as a bishop of the United Methodist Church in Germany for the past 16 years. As a young man, he studied  with Ernst Kaesemann, one of the leading biblical scholars of the 20th century. He served as a professor, then director, of a theological school at Reutlingen. As bishop of the United Methodist Church in Germany, he joined with other global church leaders in Feb., 2003,  to issue a statement opposing the war. Sponsored by the World Council of Churches, the statement said, in part:

We cannot accept the stated objectives of a war against Iraq, as laid out by these governments, in particular the US. Pre-emptive military strike and war as a means to change the regime of a sovereign state are immoral and in violation of the UN Charter. We appeal to the Security Council to uphold the principles of the UN Charter which strictly limit the legitimate use of military force and to refrain from creating negative precedence and lowering the threshold for using violent means to solve international conflicts.

I asked Bishop Klaiber to share his thoughts about the war.

In Feb. 2003 you were one of 20 global church leaders who signed a World Council of Churches statement opposing the War in Iraq. What caused you to take this stand?

I signed the WCC statement against the war in Iraq out of two reasons.    

a) I was sure that the reasons which were given to justify the war were wrong.    

b) I was convinced that the necessary goals in the struggle against terrorism and for more democracy can not be achieved by a war against the Iraq.

What now? Would you favor an immediate U.S. withdrawal of troops or should U.S. troops remain until a new Iraqi government is established?

I fear that an immediate withdrawal of the troops would put the country into a chaos. Therefore, I think that the allies have to stay till there is a new Iraqi government established, although it is not easy to anticipate when this will be.

Because United Methodism is primarily a U.S. church in membership,has this war had any effect on the way United Methodists in Germany are perceived?

The Iraq war has had an ambivalent effect for the United Methodist Church in Germany. On the one side, we were challenged or even blamed because the president of the United States is a member of the United Methodist Church and the church has not taken action against his policy. On the other side, it was clearly stated in most publications that this policy of war is against the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church.

Has the United Methodist Church in Germany been active in peacemaking in relationship to this and other wars?

The United Methodist Church joined ecumenical efforts which tried to avoid or to end wars.

What else could you share with us about your thinking about the War in Iraq?

It is my hope and my prayer that there will be a solution for the political situation in Iraq which helps these people to live in peace.This war was begun against all evidences (and former Secretary of State Powell regrets deeply that he has been made an instrument of  such a policy) , but I hope that no longer the grass-root people on both sides - Iraqi civilians and American soldiers - will have to pay the price with their lives.

Grace and peace
Bishop Walter Klaiber

Confessing Movement statement on unity risks fostering disunity

The Confessing Movement, a caucus within United Methodism devoted to "orthodox Trinitarian faith" and opposed to "homosexual practice," (see logo above) issued a statement about unity within the  United Methodist Church during a recent conference attended by some 300 people.

Unfortunately the link to the statement on the Confessing Movement's website does not seem to work, but veteran United Methodist reporter and editor Dan Gangler has summarized the statement in a United Methodist News Service (UMNS) story entitled "Confessing Movement issues statement on unity."

Gangler summarizes the document:

It defines genuine unity "as a precious gift of the Holy Spirit,  rooted in the gospel of Jesus Christ, witnessed to in Holy Scripture, summarized in ecumenical creeds, celebrated in worship and sacraments, demonstrated in common mission, articulated in our teaching, lived out in love, and contended for by the faithful."

I consider this paragraph a beautiful statement of Christian unity, reflecting the truth that unity is a gift from God, and that it is lived out in the church's life of worship, mission,  study, and love. This is a well-crafted paragraph with which I agree totally.

The statement, unfortunately, then seems to go on the attack . Gangler says:

The document also cites "practices that contribute to disunity," including neglect of Scripture, disobedience to the church's Doctrinal Standards, claims of new sources of revelation that set aside the authority of Scripture and the tested morality of the church, and "capitulation to lifestyles that are inconsistent with Christian discipleship."

If this paragraph is directed at persons like myself who want to change the Book of Discipline to fully include people of differing sexual orientations and gender identities in the life of the church, this list of "practices" is  unfortunate, and frankly mistaken.

1. We do not neglect Scripture. Our churches do Disciple Bible study and many other Bible studies. Our preaching is based on Scripture. We love the Bible. It shapes our lives and understanding. We plunge into it deeply to discover the essential truths of revelation, including God's advocacy for the poor and marginalized, the outcast and "unclean." We cherish the biblical witness to the Spirit's movement through history toward redemption, liberation, justice, reconciliation, and inclusion over against our sinful human desires to value and include only those we consider to be like us.  Members of the Confessing Movement must be careful not to imply that they are the only ones who love the Bible or who study it and base their lives on it. Such an attitude would itself be quite divisive.

2. We do not disobey the church's doctrinal standards. Well, yes we do, but so do we all.   John Wesley's General Rules (part of our doctrinal standards) call on us to avoid evil of every kind, including: "The putting on of gold and costly apparel," and "Laying up treasure upon earth." The General Rules also call upon us to do good "by giving food to the hungry, by clothing the naked, by visiting and helping them that are sick or in prison," and "by being in every kind merciful." I assume that the Confessing Movement does not consider itself superior to the rest of the church in these things. All of us need to pay more attention to avoiding evil, doing good, and attending all the ordinances of God. It is also true that our church's doctrinal standards are subject to re-examination and re-interpretation in order to apply them appropriately to the current context in which we live.

3. I am most interested in the Confessing Movement's criticism that some are claiming "new sources of revelation" that "set aside the authority of Scripture and the tested morality of the church." Here's my question: If science or medicine provides us with new information that might influence our interpretation and application of biblical revelation and truth, would the Confessing Movement accuse us of treating medical and scientific information as "new sources of revelation"? It is true that some of us have interpreted Scripture so as not to endorse aspects of  what once was "the tested morality of the church," such as the divine right of kings, the belief that the sun revolves around the earth and that scientific inquiry which might suggest otherwise is blasphemy, the endorsement of slavery, the silencing of women in the church,  an exclusively male clergy, the authority of husbands over wives and the expectation that wives shall be submissive, the definition of Africans and African-Americans as "the descendants of Ham" who are divinely predestined to be slaves, and the absolute outlawing of divorce except in cases of adultery. This part of the Confessing Movement's statement seems to come very close to suggesting that interpretations of Scripture which disagree with its views are a sign of disunity. Such an attitude, which limits acceptable biblical inquiry to that which reaches the same conclusion it does, would seem to me to itself  risk fostering disunity.

4. Certainly we are not advocating "lifestyles that are inconsistent with Christian discipleship" nor are we capitulating to such. While we are careful not to be judgmental, the Reconciling Ministries Network, and others who share our commitments, advocate faithfulness, commitment, honesty, openness, love, respect, mutuality, compassion, integrity, and Christ-likeness. These seem to me to be qualities of a lifestyle most consistent with Christian discipleship. If members of the Confessing Movement are arguing that only people who believe like them are capable of these kinds of lifestyle qualities, this seems to me to be to fostering disunity.

Again, I think the Confessing Movement's statement of the nature of unity as "a precious gift of the Holy Spirit" is beautiful. The movement's characterizations of "signs of disunity" are pejorative and , I think,  themselves  divisive.

Minutes of the meeting: Homily for a clergy gathering

Exodus 33

7 Now Moses used to take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, far off from the camp; he called it the tent of meeting. And everyone who sought the Lord would go out to the tent of meeting, which was outside the camp. 8 Whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people would rise and stand, each of them, at the entrance of their tents and watch Moses until he had gone into the tent. 9 When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent, and the Lord would speak with Moses. 10 When all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would rise and bow down, all of them, at the entrance of their tent. 11 Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then he would return to the camp; but his young assistant, Joshua son of Nun, would not leave the tent.

I'd like to invite you into the kitchen. When I was studying  at Howard Divinity School, Professor Kortright  Davis  used to remind our seminars that we were having conversations in the kitchen, not for an audience, but just talking in the kitchen with our collars unbuttoned and the tabs flapping, talking honestly about what  ministry is about and trying to make sense of it all. I'd like to invite you into the kitchen.

Here in the kitchen, I want to share with you a dream I had last  Saturday night.  It was an anxiety dream, of course. It is not unusual for me to have anxiety dreams on Saturday nights, but this one was especially disturbing.

I was in a large rustic auditorium, or it may have been an immense cave. At the front of the auditorium was a pile of boulders, very large rocks, which were the source of the heat for the hall. I stood on one of the boulders.  People were beginning to enter the auditorium/cave.

We were dressed in rustic clothes, and our hair was shoulder length. At first I thought we  were native Americans; then, I thought, maybe we were Israelites from the time of Issac and Jacob.

Standing in front of me on a taller boulder was an elder. He had an aura. He may have  divine. He said to me that, as soon as we were ready to begin, he would call on me to read the minutes of the meeting.

I had no minutes. So I ran from the hall and began searching the huts in the village, every hut but my own, looking for minutes of the meeting. I found papers, but no minutes.

Suddenly it occurred to me that I may have never written down the minutes. I may have never written the minutes, and it was too late to write them now.

A feeling of disappointment with myself flooded me. I felt hopelessly incompetent. I was filled with despair.  I was resigned to self-defeat. It was an awful feeling.  I was relieved to wake up.

So, I want to suggest this morning that this is what we do. This is our job. We read the minutes of the meeting. This is what preachers do. This is what preaching is. We read the minutes of the meeting.

This is what the Bible is -- minutes of the meetings ... minutes of the divine-human meetings. The meetings are perfect and inerrant. The minutes are human and fallible. The  minutes are as influenced by human misunderstanding, human missing of the point, human focusing on the wrong thing as all minutes are. But the minutes are precious because they are what we have of the meetings.

I understand all too well what my dream last Saturday night was about. It has been a while since I've been to a meeting. Sunday mornings I've been going into the pulpit with no minutes of the meeting.

Oh, I know how to fake it. I've been doing this a long time. I have old stories I can tell, old illustrations I can reuse, interesting ideas to talk about.  But my preaching, really, has been pretty shallow lately, because I haven't  been going to the meetings. 

When I was in seminary years ago in Boston there was a preacher in one of the big churches there whom  students at the seminary used to call Dr. Tickle-text, because --they'd say-- he took the great texts of Scripture, stood in the pulpit, and tickled them for a few minutes, and then sat down. Dr. Tickle-text.

After someone had heard him preach on one of the great texts of Scripture, the person said about the sermon: "Never have I seen so small a rabbit pulled out of so large a hat." Dr. Tickle-text.

This is what my preaching is like lately. I haven't been going to the meetings.

When the Israelites were in the wilderness, when they made camp, Moses would pitch a tent outside the camp. He called it the tent of meeting. He would go there to meet God.

I've been reading about the tent of meeting this week.  I was surprised to discover that the tent of meeting and the tabernacle were the same thing. J and D called it a tabernacle. P and E called it a tent of meeting.  The Yahwist, who believed in an individualistic jealous God, called it a tabernacle. The Yahwist and the Deuteronomist thought it was about a gathering. The priests and Elohists, who believed in something like a triune God, knew the tent was about a meeting.

I've been been avoinding the meetings. I know how to avoid them: 1) Drive to church instead of walking. Find a reason I need to take the car rather than walk. A meeting is too likely to happen when I am walking.  2) Let my desk get messy. I can always miss a meeting because I need to push papers around my desk. 3) Turn on the TV as soon as I walk in the door at the end of a day, even if the only thing on it to watch is the 70s Show.

I know how to avoid a meeting.

I avoid meetings for a couple reasons.  I angry at God right now.  There are things I need to do as a pastor right now that I am angry about having to do. I am angry. I'll show God. I wouldn't come to the meetings.

The other reason I have been skipping the meetings is because I don't want to do what I have to do, or be what I have to be. When I am in  the presence of God --God doesn't even have to talk to me-- in the presence of God I know what I have to do and who I have to be. So I avoid knowing what I have to do and who have to be by not going to the meetings.

Then Sunday morning I have no minutes of the meeting to read. I have to fake it.  Pull out some old stories, old illustrations, warmed over stuff. Phone it in. Dr. Tickle-text. Pull out a small rabbit out of a big hat.

No meeting, no minutes.

I have been here before, so I am hopeful. There have been other times in my life and ministry when I have been angry and alienated from God. When I have finally drug myself to the tent of meeting, God has always been there.  God has been patient. God has been willing to meet me at the tent of meeting.

And our people are patient. They stand outside their tents in the wilderness, and watch to see if we are going out to the tent of meeting ... watching to see if the pillar of cloud will descend on us. They watch to see: Will we  stand in our pulpits and share our interesting thoughts and opinions and good ideas or will be bring minutes of the meeting?

They know. They can tell. They will tolerate our ideas and stories, but what they are waiting for is minutes of the meeting.

But to have minutes we have to go to the meeting. We have to give up our anger. We have to sit face-to-face in the presence of the divine whose very presence calls us to do what we don't want to do and to be who we don't want to be.

To have minutes of the meeting we have to pitch the tent of meeting out side the camp, and we need to make our way to the tent of meeting. No meeting, no minutes. 

On peace demonstrators -- Q and A with Donald Sensing

The Rev. Donald Sensing, a United Methodist pastor serving in Tennessee, is a retired army officer who blogs at One Hand Clapping. His military career was highly distinguished including service in Korea, and the Panama and Gulf wars. He ended his military career as a  senior level public relations officer. His son is currently serving in the Marines in Iraq. (Please keep him and others possibly  in harm's way in your prayers.)

Although I do not always agree, I find Donald's writing to be thoughtful and articulate. I wanted my Foundry and other readers to consider his perspective on the War in Iraq, so I invited him to respond to several questions. One question, to which he has  replied (I hope he will also be able to find time to reply to others), has to do with his view of anti-war demonstrators.

Here is my question and his response:

Do you really believe the peace movement is not well intentioned or are you just being provocative? Why?

Dean, grace and peace to you in the name of our Savior, Jesus Christ!

One of the questions you asked me to respond to was whether I really think that the peace movement really has good intentions, or was I just being provocative.

Rather than ask your congregants to read my response to the question, I recommend they read today's essay by Christopher Hitchens, who has deeply-rooted, authentic leftist credentials (which I certainly do not). Hitchens makes the same basic point I did, except with greater personal insights and fluency.

Key paragraph:

To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"? Don't make me laugh. And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so, under a hail of fire from those who blow up mosques and U.N. buildings, behead aid workers and journalists, proclaim fatwahs against the wrong kind of Muslim, and utter hysterical diatribes against Jews and Hindus.

So I would challenge your readers to explain, if only to themselves, just how the so-called "antiwar" groups active today can possibly be credited with good intentions. They have a many-years-long record of supporting the cruelest, most oppressive, murderous tyrants on earth. In what possible Christian manner can their intentions be credited as good?

As I explained in my original post, I am not referring to the "small number of true pacifists" such as Quakers and Mennonites, "but their visibility and influence is near negligible." Apart from the true pacifists who neither support America's wars nor America's military enemies, "peace" activists fall into two main camps.

First is the one Hitchens describes and that I called the "Down With America" camp who will ally themselves with any thug on earth who also opposes the United States. Second, whom Hitchens does not address, is the "Political Identity" camp who "do not object to war per se, they mainly object to war being waged by the wrong people," which is to say, this administration. Certainly they supported President Clinton's invasions of Haiti and the Balkans and his multiple strikes against Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan, even though these actions were ineffective and ill-planned. When simple partisan political advantage is the obvious motive in their opposition to the present administration, in just what way is that a good intention?

Do I think all this is provocative? No. In fact, it's not provocative enough.

None of this is to say that the Bush administration is off limits to criticism for its conduct of the war, nor that the Congress's decision to declare war upon Iraq in October 2002 should never be examined. It is one thing, and necessary, to hold our elected officials accountable for what they do on our behalf. It is quite another thing to call for victory by the enemies of the United States, who would have sought our destruction whether Iraq had been invaded or not.

Grace,

Rev. Donald Sensing