untiedmethodist.com

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.

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.

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.

Bishop Willimon puts down reconciling congregations

Bishop Will Willimon (right) of the North Alabama Conference  has clarified his objection to the Hearts on Fire convocation held at Lake Junaluska, the Southeastern Jurisdiction's conference center, on Labor Day weekend.  At least I think he has.

The North Alabama Conference posted a statement on its website Aug, 11 entitled "North Alabama Conference Statement regarding 'Hearts on Fire' event Sept. 2-5 at Lake Junaluska."

The statement said that "Bishop William H. Willimon and the other Southeastern Bishops expressed their concern and displeasure over the 'Hearts on Fire' event ..."

Nowhere in the statement, however, did it say what Bishop Willimon's actual objection to the conference was. In the bishop's Sept. 19 weekly message entitled "Thinking Like a Christian," he finally clarifies his objection, at least one of them.  He argues that those of us who are part of the Reconciling Ministries Network do not care about other Christian concerns.

Here is a paragraph from  his message:

Today I fear that “Single-issue politics” are impoverishing our political life and single-issue thinking is threatening our Methodist way of serving Christ.  One of the things wrong with the “Hearts on Fire!” meeting that met recently at Junaluska was that these sisters and brothers have seized upon one issue of the faith, have climbed up on some self- presumed moral high ground and have pushed this to the virtual exclusion of larger concerns about the church and the church’s mission today.

He goes on to criticize Donald Wildman of the American Family Association (AFA) and the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). He says that "they have seized upon the same issue as the test of our faith, climbed up on high moral ground, and drawn a line in the sand to the virtual exclusion of other Body of Christ concerns."

Let me say, first of all, that Bishop Willimon could not be more wrong about my congregation, which has been a part of the Reconciling Ministries Network for a decade. We work with the homeless; we send Volunteer in Mission teams to Central America and Africa; we are assertively evangelistic; we work with immigrants; we have a dozen mission groups; we pay one of the highest apportionments in the conference and raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for additional mission efforts each year. The list could go on and on.

Because one of our commitments is to help our denomination become fully inclusive of  gay and lesbian United Methodists does not make us a "single-issue" congregation. And we are not dissimilar from the other congregations that make up the Reconciling Ministries Network.

I guess calling those of us who care about justice and inclusion for lesbian and gay United Methodists "single-issue" United Methodists is a way of avoiding the concern we are raising. By suggestion that  we are not good United Methodists but people concerned only about a single issue, Bishop Willimon seems to suppose he does not have to deal with the issue. Like those who opposed the abolitionists because they were too focused on slavery as opposed to other concerns, he supposes he does not have to address the question of whether our church policies are just or not.

Bishop Willimon calls those of us who care about including gay and lesbian Christians in the church "fringe" and "little." He writes: "I would urge our United Methodists not to let these fringe groups determine the mission of our church.  Christ has given us our mission and that mission is considerably more demanding, complex, and exciting than these little groups admit."

I would like him to think about how insulting this is to the many reconciling congregations across the country who pay our apportionments, serve our communities, work for racial justice, study the Bible, and do evangelism.

I have a lot of respect for Bishop Willimon. I have appreciated and enjoyed his writings throughout the years. However, I think this maneuver of trying to criticize both RMN and IRD is just that ... a maneuver. He is trying to avoid addressing one of the important and difficult issues of our time by dismissing both sides as "single-issue" groups.  Just as this is not true of reconciling congregations, it is not even true of IRD which began as an effort to oppose liberation theology in the third world.

I wish Bishop Willimon would come and visit Foundry Church and some of the other reconciling congregations across the country. Doesn't he owe us this before he calls us "single-issue,"' " fringe" and "little"? I think I would rather have him just come right out and say he disagrees with us rather than to seek to avoid the issue by demeaning reconciling congregations like Foundry Church.

Bishop Willimon,  you owe Foundry Church and other reconciling congregations an apology. 

Our troubled denominational marriage

We here at Foundry have just completed our second Pre-Cana Weekend (a term we stole from the Catholics; I hope they haven't put a copyright on it).

It is a marriage/commitment preparation weekend we put together last fall to give those planning to marry at Foundry or elsewhere an alternative to meeting for 4 1/2 hours of sessions with the officiating pastor. We are still developing it, but the two times we've done these weekend workshops they have gotten very good reviews from participating couples.

My wife Jane and I are certified to do Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator work, so we spend some time helping couples understand their types and how they can use type theory to understand their differences. Debra, Foundry's associate, does Bible study and leads couples through a process of discussing the mission and priorities of their marriage. We do short lectures about sex, children, money, in-laws, and sharing space.

One of the tools I  introduce to couples is Thomas-Kilmann conflict theory. Thomas-Kilmann theory suggests there are five styles we tend to use to respond in conflict situations. The people at Otto Kroeger Associates who taught me this theory have added animal images to make them easier to remember.

The five conflict styles are:

• avoiding (the turtle)
• accommodating (the teddy bear)
• competing (the shark)
• compromising (the fox)
• collaborating (the owl)

Thomas-Kilmann theory includes two especially important points:

1. Each of these styles is appropriate in certain situations. If you know someone at the end of the block has a weapon, avoiding them may be a good idea. If you don't care that much, accommodating may work fine. If your child is determined to run in front of a car, competing with him or her,  and winning, makes a lot of  sense. This is not a time to accommodate or compromise.

2. Most of us gravitate toward one style that is our favorite without considering whether this style will be the most effective in this situation. When we use a style habitually, over the long haul it tends to lead to unhealthy, non-mutual relationships.

We use Thomas-Kilmann theory to try to help couples think about their preferred styles, how these styles work together, the consequences of using these styles habitually, and the possibility of learning to think about using appropriate styles rather than habitual ones.

Some couples have told me this has been one of the most useful parts of the weekend for them. Sharks have learned how to sometimes choose to be teddy bears. Turtles have sometimes been able to act like  sharks when the stakes were high enough. Couples have decided that there are times to accept a quick compromise, and that there are times when the long complex process of figuring out how to collaborate is worth it.  (Collaboration means trying to understand the deeper  needs beneath the surface  so that the couple can figure out a way  that both partners can have their needs met for a win-win.)

In our denominational conflicts it is clear to me that our church is full of  sharks right now. Yes, we have managed some compromises in which each side wins something, but each side also loses something. The compromises don't seem very satisfying any more. We --on both sides-- are acting more and more like sharks.

The Watershed Information Network says about collaboration:

This results from a high concern for your group's own interests, matched with a high concern for the interests of other partners. The outcome is "win/win." This strategy is generally used when concerns for others are important. It is also generally the best strategy when society's interest is at stake. This approach helps build commitment and reduce bad feelings. The drawbacks are that it takes time and energy. In addition, some partners may take advantage of the others' trust and openness. Generally regarded as the best approach for managing conflict, the objective of collaboration is to reach consensus.

I have this conviction that if we could just get beneath our surface conflicts to understand the deeper values and needs that shape our positions in this conflict, we could collaborate on a way to honor both side's needs and deepest values. Unfortunately, we seem so busy chewing each others' legs off that we can't get anywhere near this possibility.

IRD's report about Hearts on Fire: True, false, and strange

The Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) has published a report about the Hearts on Fire convocation sponsored this past Labor Day weekend by the Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN). The authors are John Lomperis, who apparently attended the event, and Mark Tooley, who did not. I was informed that Mark had registered to attend, then later changed his mind, but this may  not be accurate.

Having attended the event, I found much of IRD's report to be true, some statements to be false, and other statements to be, well, strange.

So here is my top ten list of true, false, and strange statements from the IRD story. I must admit that I did not attend every workshop and plenary session, but I attended a lot of the sessions, so I think my take on the convocation is fair. (Quotes from the IRD story are in italics.)

STATEMENT # 10 -- Amid tremendous controversy, Lake Junaluska hosted "Hearts on Fire," a rally for over 500 activists trying to overturn The United Methodist Church's disapproval of homosexual practice.

FALSE: Out of the more than 600 people who attended at least a portion of the convocation, the majority were not activists. They were church people who had come to be encouraged in their Christian discipleship. Most seemed to come because they loved their local churches, and wanted to worship and pray with others  who shared common understandings of aspects of the faith. Understand, there is nothing wrong with being an activist. I try to be one. But for most of the folk at Hearts on Fire, this would be a misleading label.

STATEMENT # 9 -- Seven bishops spoke at "Hearts on Fire."   Forty active and retired bishops sent letters of greeting.

TRUE: Well, actually, two bishops spoke. The other five responded to questions, which they did by speaking, so --yes-- this statement is still technically true.  Five bishops were not, however, speakers in the usual sense of the word if speakers are defined as those who make an address or deliver a sermon . They answered questions and listened. Forty bishops did send greetings and words of encouragement. This was very inspiring.

STATEMENT # 8 -- Throughout "Hearts on Fire," speakers compared Christian teachings about sexual morality to racism.

FALSE: I heard no one compared any Christian teaching to racism. I heard some people, mostly African-Americans, compare the treatment of gay and lesbian Christians to the way black Methodists have been treated by our church. This, however, was not a major theme of the convocation. The major focus was on Scripture, God's liberating and redemptive love, and making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.

STATEMENT # 7 -- Biblical interpretations were sometimes strained to suggest approval of homosexual practice.  Referring to the 5,000 men whom Jesus fed, Bishop Minerva Carcaño of Phoenix remarked, "I doubt seriously that anyone asked about their sexual orientation."  She lamented that people are being excluded because of their race, culture, socio-economic status, and "sexual orientation," declaring "that is just wrong!"

STRANGE: Do John and Mark think the 5,000 men, as well as women and children, whom Jesus fed were asked about their sexual orientation? The two ideas that the writers have put together in this paragraph were separate points in Bishop Carcaño's sermon. (She is pictured preaching above.) Actually, the comment about the feeding of the 5,000 was a humorous aside, not a major theme. It could hardly be defined as an example of biblical interpretation. Find another summary of the bishop's sermon here.

STATEMENT # 6 -- Retired Bishop Richard Wilke continued on a similar theme.  "I'm so frustrated with people who take a prejudice and then find a Bible quote to support it," Wilke said.  He likened disapproval of homosexual practice to earlier defenses of slavery, discrimination against women and support for war.

TRUE: Bishop Wilke indeed said these things. I have read objections to this statement. I don't believe that Bishop Wilke was including everyone who disagrees with him in this generalization. I do think he was saying that this has been a common practice throughout Christian history and that this practice continues today. I do think he was suggesting that many people use a couple of Scripture verses to condemn gay and lesbian Christians when their condemnation is actually based on prejudice rather than a thoughtful study of Scripture.  Who could deny that this often is the case?

STATEMENT # 5 -- "Today people are coming out of the closet, being honest with God and neighbor about who they are," Wilke enthused.

STRANGE: This is not untrue, but then Bishop Wilke seems to be enthusiastic about pretty much everything he says. I checked the Washington Post to see if any Post reporters ever refer to someone as "enthusing." I could find no examples.  I can think of no time I have ever heard this verb used in ordinary conversation. So I am left wondering what it is the writers are trying to communicate. Certainly, Bishop Wilke did not enthuse this statement any more or less than other things he said, including his testimony about his committing his life to Christ and opening his heart to the Holy Spirit.

STATEMENT # 4 -- Retired Bishop Melvin Talbert agreed.  "I'm here to say that I believe, as a bishop of the church, the position that our church has on this issue is wrong, and I say that unapologetically!," he declared.

TRUE: Bishop Talbert was amazingly direct and prophetic in his witness. God bless him.

STATEMENT # 3 -- Bishop John Schol of Washington, D.C. said that he was there "to go give honor and glory to God" and also "to say 'I'm sorry'" for the "times in my life" when he "found it easier to make fun of or to make jokes about people that I didn't understand or people that I didn't think I wanted to associate with."  He said he was making sure that "gay and lesbian, transgendered and bisexual persons are also in leadership positions" in the Baltimore-Washington Conference.

TRUE: I will assume the writers are not suggesting that Bishop Schol was wrong to apologize for the kinds of thoughtless jokes he, like many of us, may have made or laughed at in the past. I will assume the writers are not suggesting that such jokes are appropriate or that they mean to encourage them. Since almost everything they say in their report about the event is negative, one might jump to the conclusion that they are likewise being critical of  Bishop Schol's commitment to treat gay people with dignity. I will assume this is not the case.

STATEMENT # 2 -- Bishop Susan Morrison of Albany lauded the "gifts of the Denver 15" bishops who in 1996 publicly declared their opposition to the church's teachings about sexual ethics.  They "broke the myth about the Council" of Bishops being composed of leaders who "all agreed," she enthused.

STRANGE: I attended seminary with the future Bishop Morrison. Then, years later, she was my bishop for many years. She is very thoughtful, straight-forward, intelligent, and articulate, but I don't think I have ever heard her enthuse. The use of this verb in Bishop Morrison's case is so strange as to be exotic.

STATEMENT #1 -- Also speaking, in the interest of dialogue, was Bishop Scott Jones of Wichita, who supports the church's position on homosexuality.  He urged going back to John Wesley, the church's doctrines, and the Bible for guidance.  His remarks were received politely.

FALSE: The remarks of Bishop Jones and his presence were received much more than merely politely; he was applauded enthusiastically. One might even say, I suppose, that the audience enthused about his remarks and presence.

I hope I am not sarcastic in my reaction to IRD's report.  I only mean to illustrate some of the ways the IRD report seems, to my mind,to be  inaccurate and slanted.

Author of Disciple Bible Study leads Bible study at Hearts on Fire

Bishop Richard B. Wilke, now retired, who authored Disciple Bible Study with his wife Julia,  began his Bible study on the afternoon of the second day of the Hearts on Fire convocation by sharing his testimony.

When he was 14 years old, the future bishop heard a speaker talk about there being a lot of stars in the heavens but only one North Star. He went forward to kneel at an altar and to ask Jesus to be his North Star. Years later when he was a young pastor trying to save the world, he heard the missionary E. Stanley Jones talk about the Holy Spirit, and he opened his heart to surrender control of his life to the Holy Spirit.

"I am so frustrated with people who have a prejudice and then find a Bible verse to support it," he said. "The Bible shows us Jesus." He repeated a basic affirmation of Scripture -- no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

His Bible lesson, basedon Acts 15,  consisted of a "conversation" with Peter, Paul, Luke, and James (the brother of Jesus) about Christians of differing sexual orientations. He applied the thinking of these persons about the inclusion of gentiles in the early church to the current situation of the acceptance of gay and lesbian Christians within the church.

Speaking as Peter, he said: "I told the early church you don't need to be circumcised or follow kosher food laws to fully belong to Jesus Christ." The question is whether lives manifest the fruit of the Spirit. Look at the two men in the choir devoted to each or the two women preparing  Communion who have lived together faithfully for 40 years, he said, and see the evident fruit of the Spirit.

Speaking as Paul, he talked about his efforts to purge the church of gentiles. "I heard how Jesus reached out to outsiders and the unclean, and I was furious. I held the coats of those who were stoning Stephen." But Paul was turned around by Jesus. "It is like what I said in Galatians," the bishop said as though he were Paul. "The question is: Do they love Christ? Have they received the Holy Spirit? Do they show the signs of the Holy Spirit?"

Speaking as Dr. Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, Bishop Wilke summarized the medical and scientific evidence about sexual orientation. He quoted a study that shows homosexual men are as healthy as heterosexual men. He talked about the mental health professional associations that have consistently come to understand that homosexuality is not a pathology. He said that sexuality is not a box or a category but a spectrum. That's why, he said, we have to accept people for who they are, not as a category.

Finally, Bishop Wilke spoke as James, the brother of Jesus,  the most conservative of the participants in the Acts 15 story. James, he said, agreed with the others that all who love Jesus should have full participation in the church. He mentioned the expectations communicated to the gentiles in Acts 15: Don't drink blood (because it was an offering to idols), remember the poor (participants in Hearts on Fire have collected more than  $10,000 for UMCOR), and avoid fornication and promiscuous sex.

Bishop Wilke said our society has a problem with promiscuous sex. Two-thirds of all our children under 17 have had sex, the bishop said. One-half of all marriages end in divorce. Incest and child abuse is not unusual.

"What I am pleading for is a church, homosexual and heterosexual, who avoid  rape, abuse, single bars, one-night stands, and such," he said.  "Conservatives are concerned about the misuse of sex that we are concerned about, too."

Bishop Wilke concluded by remembering Harriet and Grace, two women in a church he served, who lived together for 60 years. They prepared Communion for his church faithfully every month. When one was dying, the other never left her side. He sat with them and watched as she gently cared for her loved one, and patiently gave her spoonfuls of water to lessen her discomfort.

This is not going to be solved philosophically, Bishop Wilke said.  It will be solved as we open our eyes to see the fruit of the Spirit demonstrated by people like Harriet and Grace.

The bishop said he believes  what Fanny Crosby wrote: "There is  room at the cross for you ... black or white, male or  female, young or old. The bishop said that he believes that if Fanny Crosby were writing the hymn today she would include " straight or gay." He looked at the congregation and said: "There is room at the cross for you." 

Good statements about labor aren't enough -- Labor Day weekend with Michael Szpak: Part Four

This is part of an ongoing conversation with the Rev. Dr. Michael Szpak about the relationship between working people and the United Methodist Church. Parts One, Two, and Three of this conversation have already been posted.

Question: Over these past decades it seems to me the United Methodist  Church has perhaps has become more of an owners’ or managers’ church rather than a church of working people, who are more likely to be found in the Assembly of God Church or the Church of God in Christ. Do you agree? If so, why isn’t our denomination attracting more working people when our Social Principles are so supportive of labor? 

Rev. Szpak: This is a very complex issue. Further, I am not a “church growth” specialist so what I offer here is primarily anecdotal and experiential, and I need to approach this question from my location within organized labor. 

Why aren’t more union members and activists attracted to local United Methodist congregations even though we have social teachings that support the rights of workers to organize and maintain unions?

Unquestionably, in many geographical areas, I have found that owners and managers are members of local United Methodist congregations especially in the “downtown” churches.  More often our churches attract professionals, small business people, farmers (in rural areas) and the middle classes.  The use of the term “working people” is also very difficult to define since this encompasses a broad range of occupational categories:  white collar and blue collar, salaried vs. hourly, and income levels.

For the sake of this discussion, I would assume that you mean non-managerial, non-salaried workers, both blue and white collar. These would all be persons who have the right to organize into unions. I would maintain that having social principles that support workers’ rights does not guarantee that the United Methodist Church will attract working people and union members more than faith groups without them.  A church is more than its written social teachings.  Unless it is willing to witness to these teachings in concrete ways and to find places where these teachings can make a difference, these teachings will only remain on paper. 

People make choices about church membership based on a lot of factors besides a church’s social teachings. My experience with Church of God in Christ congregations, and Black churches generally, has demonstrated their natural tilt toward supporting workplace justice struggles especially when they involve their members.  The social teachings on worker  justice issues of the Black churches are not  expressed by written “social principles.” Rather they are biblically based (see  Moses and the Exodus experience for example) and are influenced by their social action, political involvement and community empowerment traditions. 

Obviously, the history of racism in the United Methodist Church is a real factor that needs to be taken into account here. This history often gives our churches the reputation of being unfriendly to persons of color, many of who are workers.  The potential friendliness of United Methodist congregations to immigrant workers, both documented and undocumented, are hindered by the language barrier, immigrant faith traditions and worship styles. 

The  metropolitan Washington, D.C., area is a good example of these dynamics.  Although United Methodist churches are placed in the middle of large numbers of immigrant peoples (not only Latino, but also African), most of whom are workers, there is little effective organized activity to attract these persons to our local congregations.    

Bottom line, it takes more than written social principles supporting workers’ rights to attract “working people” and union members to United Methodist congregations. We have good positions on workplace justice issues because, from our Wesleyan roots, unscrupulous employer practices violate the Golden Rule.  We don’t have social principles that affirm worker justice to attract workers to our congregations.  Our church affirms these social teachings because they are morally right.

Bishop Carcano preaches to begin Day Two of Hearts on Fire

Bishop Minerva Carcano of the Desert Southwest Area began the day today by preaching on the story of Jesus and the loaves and fishes. She emphasized two points:

Jesus' disciples wanted to send the crowds away, no doubt in part so they could have him to themselves. Jesus insisted they not send the people away but feed them.

Bishop Carcano said she was proud to be in ministry in the United Methodist Church, but that it was only by the grace of God that she is a United Methodist today.  She told the story of her father losing his job when she was a small girl. Her family was forced to move to North Texas to live with her uncle for a number of months. Their first Sunday in town her family did what they always did -- they got in their old station wagon and drove to the nearest Methodist Church. They never got out of the car, however. The stares of the well-dressed Methodists walking into the church made it clear that they were not welcome. They turned around and drove home.

It was humiliating, she said, to have to tell their Catholic relatives that they had not been welcome in their own church.

The next day a Baptist Sunday school teacher who had heard they had moved to town stopped by to invite the family to her church. For the months they lived in that town, they worshiped and went to Sunday school at the Baptist church. The pastor kept trying to get her family to join the church, but her mother always told him: "Thank you for accepting us here, but we can't join because we are Methodists."

"What is most important," Bishop Carcano said, "is not whether we are liberal, conservative, or moderate, but whether we share Jesus' view of the world which includes everyone ... people of all races, cultures, economic conditions, sexual orientations."

We can not get close to Jesus by telling others to go away so that we can have him to ourselves, she said. The concept of "amicable separation,"  she added, denies God's vision of a household that includes us all.

The second point she emphasized was what Jesus was able to do with a few loaves and fishes. She said that what concerns her the most about the United Methodist Church is our scarcity mentality. "We hold on to it all as if it will evaporate if we even think about sharing it," she said. "We care more about what we have in hand than what could happen if we surrendered it all to him."

She wondered out loud what we might be able to accomplish if we took all the money spent by Good News and the Confessing Movement, and all the money given by United Methodists to the Institute on Religion and Democracy, and all the money Reconciling Ministries Network has  spent, and channeled it into the prophetic work of Jesus Christ in the world.