untiedmethodist.com

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