Please: Kim Davis Is Not Rosa Parks

Attempting to block integration at the University of Alabama, Governor of Alabama George Wallace stands at the door of the Foster Auditorium while being confronted by United States Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach.

He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Micah 6:8

Yesterday I was driving south on the Maine Turnpike, listening to Margery Eagen and Jim Braude on Boston Public Radio, WGBH. I came into range of the program when they were inviting listeners to tell them, “What one issue would cause you to support or oppose a presidential candidate, and why?”

And the calls came in. One guy said that he wasn’t a one issue person but he was very concerned that there were people who knew nothing about guns, yet would support a candidate on the basis of his or her support for gun control. He thought that most people in favor of gun control had not owned a gun or fired a gun, and how could they possibly understand the issue.

And then.

A very well-spoken and seemingly intelligent man called in from Cambridge to say that he was supporting Mike Huckabee because of Huckabee’s support for Kim Davis, the Kentucky County Clerk who went to jail (she was released yesterday afternoon) for refusing to issue a marriage license to same sex couples. Davis, he said, was like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. He said that people did not understand civil disobedience. If they did, then even if they did not agree with her views on gay marriage, they would support her actions.

Oddly, my head did not explode. 

Kim Davis has been called the Rosa Parks of Religious Freedom.

No. And, no. 

Arguments by analogy can be helpful. Often we can understand something new by the comparison with something we already understand well. But analogies are inherently imperfect and inexact. That being said, Kim Davis is not to Religious Freedom as Rosa Parks was to Civil Rights.

A better analogy for Kim Davis’ refusal to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples would be George Wallace’s refusal to permit the integration of public all white schools and colleges in Alabama. Wallace was, as Davis is, a government official who refused to uphold the law.

Beyond that, it is hard to think of anyone who has done more harm to the Christian witness in recent months than Kim Davis. (I said, it’s hard, not impossible. And, yes, it’s a long list. There are other contenders.)

P.S.: On this date in 1963, Governor George Wallace was served with a federal injunction directing him to stop state police from barring black students from enrolling at white schools.

Just One Question for Christians Opposed to Marriage Equality

Tony Campolo. Sociologist, Pastor, Author

Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Mark 12:29-31

More than twenty years ago, I was part of a small gathering at Community Baptist Church in Manchester, Connecticut, listening to Tony Campolo talk about what it means to be a follower of Jesus. He was and is a compelling speaker: bold, enthusiastic, insightful, inspiring, and honest. He spoke in conversational tones, but his energy filled the room.

When it was time for questions, someone asked him what he thought about homosexuality.

This was long before there was any serious thought about equal marriage. At that time, most Protestant churches were still grappling with the basic idea of gay and lesbian civil rights.

Campolo paused. He looked directly at the questioner. “Well,” he asked slowly, “What did Jesus say about it?”

Silence.

And then, with increased energy, he answered his own question. “Jesus didn’t say anything about it.”

“So,” he said, “My question for you is, ‘Why is this so important to you?’”

I have thought about that exchange often over the years. I had already been committed to gay and lesbian civil rights for a long time. In terms of philosophical and theological ethics, it seemed obvious. But twenty something years ago, the biblical piece had not yet become clear to me and I found his response very helpful.

A few weeks ago, when Tony Campolo unsettled many evangelicals by “coming out” in support of the full inclusion of gays and lesbians within the church, I was not surprised. I doubt that it was a great change in his perspective. I think he was just finally admitting to the world (and possibly to himself) what he had believed for a long time.

Kevin DeYoung, senior pastor of University Reformed Church in East Lansiing, Michigan published a blog post titled, “40 Questions for Christians Now Waving Rainbow Flags,” that has been widely shared on social media. Some of the questions might prompt reflection, others are obvious, and some are accusatory, but the overall thrust is to suggest that supporting equal marriage is unbiblical. Many others have answered those questions in a variety of ways, and some of the answering is probably necessary. If only to prove that those of us waving the rainbow flags have also read the Bible.

My first response was to think of all the questions I have for those who think that the advent of equal marriage is the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it. I thought of writing something called “400 Questions for Christians Opposed to Equal Marriage.”

But in the end, all of my questions boiled down to the one Tony Campolo asked two decades ago. 

Why?

Why is this so important to you?

Why aren’t you more concerned, as Jesus was, about income inequality, about social and economic justice? Why aren’t you more concerned about war?

When the Hebrew prophets pronounced God’s judgment, the issue was justice, not sexuality. If you are looking for signs of the end, why aren’t you looking there?

How can you possibly be so invested in denying rights to people? And how can you believe that is what Jesus would want you to do?

Franklin Graham Warns of Moral Decay

Those who say, ‘I love God’, and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also.
I John 4:20-21

The Rev. Franklin Graham has been in the news recently, declaring his determination to “fight the tide of moral decay that is being crammed down our throats by big business, the media, and the gay & lesbian community.”

On his Facebook page, Graham wrote:

Have you ever asked yourself–how can we fight the tide of moral decay that is being crammed down our throats by big business, the media, and the gay & lesbian community? Every day it is something else! Tiffany’s started advertising wedding rings for gay couples. Wells Fargo bank is using a same-sex couple in their advertising. And there are more. But it has dawned on me that we don’t have to do business with them. At the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, we are moving our accounts from Wells Fargo to another bank. And guess what—we don’t have to shop at Tiffany & Co., there are plenty of other jewelry stores. This is one way we as Christians can speak out—we have the power of choice. Let’s just stop doing business with those who promote sin and stand against Almighty God’s laws and His standards. Maybe if enough of us do this, it will get their attention. Share this if you agree.

This is not a new crusade for Graham, who is the director of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association started by his famous father. In seminary, my Old Testament professor, Dr. Harrell Beck, frequently expressed his dismay at the shallow theology and limited biblical scholarship of the elder Graham. The Rev. Franklin Graham and his sister, the Rev. Anne Graham Lotz share their father’s aversion to scholarly inquiry and theological reflection, but they have added something new to the mix. 

They are mean in ways that their father never was. 

In his most recent pronouncement, Franklin Graham is calling for a boycott of businesses that are, in his mind, promoting the gay agenda. His target this week is Wells Fargo Bank, and Graham announced that he will lead the boycott by withdrawing all the funds of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (nearly $300,000,000, as I recall) and depositing them in another bank. 

The story has its own amusing punch line.  The bank Graham chose as the new repository for his funds, BB&T, received an 80% score on the Corporate Equality Index of the Human Rights Campaign and this year they are sponsoring the Miami Beach Gay Pride Parade as well as something called the “Legacy Couples” program, which honors gay and lesbian couples who have been in committed relationships for ten years or longer.

But let’s get back to the Wells Fargo ad that touched off this most recent outburst. Where Graham sees moral decay I see joy and commitment and God at work in the world. It’s simply wonderful and you have to see it. 

How can you not love those two moms? How can you not love that little girl? And if you cannot love the moms and the little girl, then how can you possibly love God?

Indiana and the Right to a Dominant Worldview

Indiana Protest Against the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

The time is surely coming, says the Lord God, when I will send a famine on the land; not a famine of bread, or a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord.
Amos 8:11

Amos observes the injustice of his people and proclaims that there will be a famine. But this famine will not be about a shortage of food or water. This will be a famine “of hearing the words of the LORD.” If you do not act justly, says Amos, then you will not be able to hear what God is saying to you.

In Indiana there is a famine among some of their political and religious leaders, “not a famine of bread, or a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord.”

They are so unaware of the injustice of a worldview that takes for granted the lesser status of LGBTQ citizens, that they cannot hear the words of the Lord in this context. When injustice looks like normal, it is very difficult to see anything else.

Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel said that a prophet is someone who knows what time it is.

He did not mean time as measured by the clock. And he didn’t mean the sense of timing that we associate with successfully telling a joke or making a political calculation. The role of the prophet is to reflect on the sacred story of what God has done, and what God has called us to do in the world to work for justice, and then by reading the signs of the times, to proclaim what God requires in the present moment.

The prophet Micah asked rhetorically, “What does the LORD require of you?” And then declared the answer, “To do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”

In response to Governor Mike Pence’s recent signing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, United Methodist Bishop Mike Coyner issued a pastoral letter about “Faith and Fear.”

He rightly notes that the measure is not founded on faith or on religion, but on fear. People fear that that their faith is under attack, even though it isn’t. But he wrongly argues that there is an equally misplaced fear on the other side of the issue; that those who fear the law will lead to discrimination are overreacting. In the end, his desire to be fair to both sides gives legitimacy to those who want religious cover for their prejudice.

The law is designed to enable discrimination. It is not unreasonable to fear that the law might do what it is designed to do.

In one sense, the bishop is probably right when he says that it will all turn out to be “much ado about nothing.” It is unlikely that very many vendors will turn away business. It is not the most important thing in the world.

But that is not the point.

The law will do at least two things.

The first and most important result of the law is to reassert the dominance of a worldview that discriminates against LGBT people. Every time they enter into a business transaction, or look for an apartment, or apply for a loan, or apply for a job, they will know that the law says that they can be denied simply because of who they are. That is no small thing.

The second result of this law is that it reinforces the perception that Christians are bigots.

It is time (long past time) for Christians to speak up. This isn’t about sincerely held beliefs on both sides. It is about right and wrong. It is about justice. It is about knowing what time it is.

The Second Best Time to Change Your Mind

Do not remember the former things, or consider the things of old. I am about to do a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.
Isaiah 43:18-19

There is a Chinese proverb that says, “The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago. The second best time is now.”

David Gushee, a leading evangelical ethicist, has chosen the second best time to change his mind. Jonathan Merritt, in a column for the Religious News Service, writes that Gushee recently announced that he has changed his mind on issues relating to homosexuality and Christian faith and he is now an advocate for the full inclusion of LGBT Christians within the life of the church.

In an address planned for a training event to be hosted by The Reformation Project on November 6-8, Gushee will declare his change of heart. “I do join your crusade tonight,” According to a draft of the speech obtained by RNS, Gushee will declare that, “I will henceforth oppose any form of discrimination against you. I will seek to stand in solidarity with you who have suffered the lash of countless Christian rejections. I will be your ally in every way I know how to be.”

Gushee is clear that he should have changed his mind sooner, “It took me two decades of service as a married, straight evangelical Christian minister and ethicist to finally get here,” he told the group. And then he apologized for that long delay, saying, “I am truly sorry that it took me so long to come into full solidarity with the Church’s own most oppressed group.”

He identifies four factors that led to his change of heart.

His work on environmental ethics and torture brought him into contact with many gay evangelical Christians who were working on those same issues. Their witness led him to reconsider what he thought the Bible said about homosexuality, and that Bible study convinced him that the Bible did not say what he had thought it said. (For a review of the biblical issues, see my post on Sexual Orientation and the Bible.) Gushee recognized, as many others have, that the Bible has been misused to justify oppression and injustice in the past, on issues like slavery, women’s rights, segregation, anti-Semitism, and torture.

In addition to the witness of gay Christians and his reconsideration of the biblical basis for his position, he had an experience much closer to home. Merritt writes that “in 2008, his younger sister, Katey, came out as a lesbian. She is a Christian, single mother, and had been periodically hospitalized for depression and a suicide attempt.” This convinced Gushee that “traditionalist Christian teaching produces despair in just about every gay or lesbian person who must endure it.”

And finally, he was influenced by the overwhelming body of scientific research which says that sexual orientation is not a choice, it is a natural form of human diversity. All of this led him to begin his theological and ethical reflection from a new starting point: the suffering of LGBT Christians.

Gushee’s defection is important. He is a leading evangelical ethicist. His book, “Kingdom Ethics,” written with the late Glen Stassen, is a staple of courses on evangelical ethics. Gushee has written a book about his journey called “Changing Our Mind: A Call from America’s Leading Evangelical Ethics Scholar for Full Acceptance of LGBT Christians in the Church,” which will be released by David Crumm Media prior to the speech. He hopes that his new book, like his previous work, will become a basic resource for evangelical Christians and that it will provide an opportunity for other Christians to reexamine their views on this issue.

The book, and Gushee’s affirmation of solidarity with LGBT Christians, mark one more step in a long journey. He is not the first evangelical Christian to change his mind on this issue, and he will not be the last. One hopes that United Methodists who continue to exclude and condemn their gay sisters and brothers will pay attention.

Gushee knows that former friends and colleagues will be swift to condemn his epiphany, but he maintains that he does not worry. “I still love Jesus and read the Bible and pray every morning, and I don’t really care what they say,” he said, according to Merritt. “I’m willing to let God and history be my judge.”

Schism Is a Bad Idea

From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way. So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

II Corinthians 5:16-20

If you Google “Schism in the UMC,” you will find plenty of news articles, essays, blog posts, and editorials. Last week the Huffington Post published a report from the Religious News Service (RNS), about a group of 80 United Methodist pastors who are laying the groundwork for what they are calling an “amicable” separation. The Rev. Maxie Dunnam, retired president of Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky summed up the sentiment of many when he said, “We can no longer talk about schism as something that might happen in the future. Schism has already taken place in our connection.”

After forty years, we can see the present status of the conflict summarized in two related episodes.

Earlier this winter, Frank Schaefer, a former Pennsylvania pastor, was found guilty of violating church law when he officiated at his son’s 2007 wedding. He was given a thirty day suspension and told to come back at the end of that time and report to the Conference Board of Ordained ministry on whether or not he could agree to uphold the whole Discipline. He said that he could not deny the calling he felt to minister to LGBTQ Christians and would not promise to uphold the exclusionary paragraphs in our United Methodist Book of Discipline. The Board of Ministry revoked his orders.

Like many others, I was shocked by that decision on the part of the Board of Ministry. They claimed to have no choice, but they really had many choices. They could have done nothing. They could have deferred a decision. Since service on the Board is voluntary and unpaid, they could have resigned.

The second episode also involved Thomas Ogletree, a United Methodist clergyperson and former dean of Yale Divinity School who officiated at his gay son’s 2012 wedding. In that case, Bishop Martin McLee announced in March that he would drop the case against Ogletree, and he called for an end to church trials for clergy who perform same sex weddings.

Those who identify as “traditionalists” were outraged.

Publicly, what they say about this latest episode is that they are shocked (shocked!) that a Bishop in the United Methodist Church would openly refuse to uphold church law. My guess is that what really troubles them is that they can see the writing on the wall. They know that other bishops will follow Bishop McLee’s lead. Bishop Sally Dyck has already stepped up with a bold statement against schism and in favor of inclusion.

They know that public opinion is shifting rapidly. Of course, we don’t base our Christian social ethics on public opinion, but there is something to be said for common wisdom. In our Wesleyan Quadrilateral, we look at Scripture, Reason, Tradition, and Experience as the four categories of exploration that undergird our interpretation of scripture and our ethical decision making. Public opinion is part of our experience.

In a post on the "ChurchLeaders" website, blogger Matt Brown, writes, “There's so much talk lately in the news media and from liberal political groups about ‘being on the right side of history.’ They are saying: one day we will all regret standing for Scriptural values, because everyone else in the nation will agree we were wrong for not agreeing with them.” The real point, he argues, is that Christians need to be “on the right side of eternity.”

At first glance, that doesn’t sound as bad as it is. After all, don’t we want to be on the right side of eternity? And don’t we want to stand for Scriptural values, even if everyone else is on the other side?

Burgess is right to call for theological reflection on the issues, but that is precisely the point that reformers are making. The question is not about whether or not we will embrace “Scriptural values,” the debate is about what those values are.

When Dr. King, channeling the great Abolitionist preacher Theodore Parker, proclaimed that in the struggle for civil rights, we know that we will prevail because “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,” he was summing up a fundamental belief of our heritage. The people of Israel believed that God acts in history, in Exodus and Exile and Restoration. When Jesus talked about the Kingdom of God, he was talking about establishing God’s vision for humanity on earth, in history. When we speak of being on the right side of history, we are making an affirmation of faith. There are times when the arc is so long it may seem flat, but eventually it will bend toward justice. To be on the right side of history as the moral arc bends toward justice is to be on the right side of eternity.

Those who have been working for the full inclusion of our LGBTQ sisters and brothers have been at it for a long time. In the beginning, and for many years, we were in the minority. We did not shy away from “standing for Scriptural values,” even though it was not popular.

Adam Hamilton and Mike Slaughter, pastors of two of the largest United Methodist congregations in the United States, are charting “A Way Forward” that is far from perfect, but it avoids schism. Their plan is very simple:

• · Let each local congregation decide for itself where it stands.
• · Those who favor full inclusion can do so.
• · Those who want to support equal marriage can do so, and the clergy of those churches can perform same sex weddings (subject, of course, to local laws).
• · Annual Conferences that want to ordain LGBTQ candidates for ministry can do so.
• · Those that don’t want to don’t have to.
• · Churches that do not wish to have a gay pastor can say so.

Apart from the obvious criticism that it looks a lot like congregationalism (oh no!), it would mean that a final resolution to the debate would be postponed for a very long time, and we would remain divided. On the other hand, it would avoid a schism that would permanently split us into separate denominations.

The list of church leaders who have signed on is impressive. In addition to Hamilton and Slaughter, they have a long list of pastors from the usually conservative areas of Texas and Florida, including Rudy Rasmus, who was pastor to President George Bush. They also have Dean Snyder and Ginger Gaines-Cirelli from Foundry UMC in Washington D.C., one of the most progressive and inclusive congregations in the country.

The local and regional option proposed by Hamilton and Slaughter is not perfect, but it might provide a graceful way to back out of our current impasse.

Mike Huckabee and the Fallacy of Unchanging Convictions

We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.
Ephesians 4:14-16

At a Republican presidential debate in 2007 on CNN, the candidates were asked whether or not they believed the Bible. Actually, the questioner held up a Bible and asked them, “Do you believe in this book?”

As a pastor and as a Christian, I find questions like that uncomfortable and unhelpful. That’s a question that deserves a thoughtful and nuanced answer. After all, what does the questioner mean by “believe in?” Do you want to know whether or not someone is a biblical literalist, or do you want to know whether or not a person thinks the Bible is a sacred book? It is not suited to a sound bite or a short answer in a debate.

The only response I remember was delivered by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who is also an ordained Baptist minister. He said that the Bible is a complicated book and that there are many parts that we might argue about, “But,” he said, “the Bible has some messages that nobody really can confuse and really are not left to interpretation. 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 'In as much as you've done to the least of these brethren, you've done unto me.' Until we get those simple, real easy things right I am not so sure that we should be fighting over those other parts that are a little bit complicated.”

All things considered, that was a pretty good answer.

Huckabee’s answer gave me hope that he would be a thoughtful conservative Christian voice among the cacophony of self-righteous and mean spirited religiosity that masquerades as Christianity in our political debates. Heaven knows we need that.

Unfortunately, he has gone off the rails just about as often as anyone else. Sometimes it’s been funny, like when he assured an NRA audience that he was a stalwart supporter of the second amendment and illustrated his commitment by saying that he was an avid hunter. In a creative combination of his theology and politics, he told them he believed there would be duck hunting in heaven and emphasized the point by saying, “I can’t wait!” Jon Stewart observed that from the duck’s perspective this would mean that heaven would be duck hell.

Who can forget his remarks on abortion, birth control, and a woman’s libido?

In a recent interview on Fox News, Laura Ingraham asked him if Republicans were being unfairly labeled as “anti-gay.” Governor Huckabee responded by redirecting the question toward President Obama. He pointed out that in 2008, then candidate Obama took the same view of gay marriage that he did. And then he talked about how the President’s views had shifted.

"He said it was because of his Christian convictions," Huckabee observed. "Does he have them or does he not? If one has them, they don't change depending on what the culture does. You don't take an opinion poll to come up with a new point of view."

The Governor is right that we don’t do Christian ethics by taking an opinion poll. And he’s right that we can’t depend on the culture to define right and wrong. Greed isn’t good, no matter how much the popular culture may affirm it. But that doesn’t mean that our convictions don’t change over time.

For many years, The Christian Century ran a series called, “How My Mind Has Changed,” and they would ask prominent scholars and theologians to reflect on how their beliefs and convictions had changed over the years. Our faith is supposed to grow. And growth means change.

As James Russell Lowell wrote in his great abolitionist hymn, “Once to Every Man and Nation,”

New occasions teach new duties,
Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still and onward,
Who would keep abreast of truth.

In Governor Huckabee’s home state of Arkansas, there must be tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of Christians who grew up in the time when Governor Faubus was standing against the integration of the schools in Little Rock. As children or young adults, many of them believed in segregation and held that belief as a Christian conviction. But now, as adults, those same people are convinced that segregation and racism are wrong. Thankfully, their convictions have changed.

Similarly, there may well be millions of Protestant Christians now living who believed as children and young adults that women could not be ordained as pastors. A high percentage of those same people now believe that women can and should be ordained. Many now have female pastors whom they love dearly. Thankfully, their convictions have changed.

My own views have changed on a number of theological and biblical issues. I read the Bible differently, particularly in terms of its historical context. And my understanding of the atonement has changed dramatically.

We say that faith is a journey because it is. We don’t just make endless circles on the same track. We travel. We learn and we grow. And we change.

Methodists Behaving Badly

A lawyer asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
Matthew 22:35-40

When I logged on to AOL this evening, (I will pause now to wait for all of the tech-savvy folks to stop laughing at me for still using AOL. There, I hope that made you feel better.) across the top of the screen to the right of the “Unfolding Now” sign, it said “United Methodist Church.” Right next to “Prince William of Wales.”

I clicked on it and up popped the latest news in the ongoing story of the Rev. Frank Schaefer. He was tried and convicted in a church court for violating the Book of Discipline by officiating at the same sex wedding of his son several years ago. Today he was defrocked. Which sounds both painful and medieval. And it is. Painful and medieval.

The trial verdict had said that he would be suspended for thirty days and at the end of that time would have to declare to the Eastern Pennsylvania Board of Ordained Ministry that he would uphold the entire Discipline or else surrender his credentials.

Two quick notes on this:

First, they didn’t really mean that he had to uphold the entire Book of Discipline. They wanted him to say that he would not officiate at another same sex wedding. If he came back at the end of his thirty day suspension and confessed that he could uphold almost the whole Discipline, but he could not give up buying a lottery ticket for his elderly father on Father’s Day, I’m guessing that would have been overlooked. More seriously, if he had said that he did not agree with the Discipline’s support of unions and collective bargaining, that would not have been a deal breaker.

Second, no one supports the entire Book of Discipline. The Discipline is a big book and there is a lot in there. Universal healthcare, a woman’s right to choose abortion, gun control, just to name a few. And beyond the social issues, there are all sorts of directions about how we organize our churches, who can vote in church meetings and who can old office, which offices every local church “must” have and which ones are optional. And it changes every four years. Most of it stays the same, but some of it changes, and keeping up with the new rules is hard even for those who study it.

But Rev. Schaefer was clear in his response: “My conscience does not allow me to uphold the entire discipline because it contains discriminatory provisions and language that is hurtful and harmful to our homosexual brothers and sisters.”

So the Board of Ordained Ministry took his credentials.

Ironically, on that same AOL page that invited me to look at what was “Unfolding Now,” there was a link to the story about “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson who has been suspended indefinitely by A&E for his statements condemning homosexuality in an interview with GQ. His language is sometimes crude, but basically he supports the United Methodist Discipline.

Ouch.

So if the United Methodist Church had a show on A&E, would we be on indefinite suspension right now?

One of our church leaders in East Greenwich is a senior executive in a national company. He spoke to me about the odd disconnect he felt knowing that at work “we are all about inclusion and diversity,” but our church is refusing to recognize the full humanity of our gay and lesbian sisters and brothers. “It just seems bizarre,” he said, “that’s a no-brainer. We’re a church, for heaven’s sake.”

We have to stop this. A year and a half ago Bishop Melvin Talbert issued what he described as a call to "Biblical Obedience" in response to the unjust and discriminatory provisions of the Book of Discipline. At each new injustice, there are Bishops and church leaders who claim that they are only “following the process,” or “upholding the Discipline.” It has to stop.

These are hurtful policies. We are hurting our LGBTQ sisters and brothers, especially our youth. We are hurting faithful Christians who are only trying to faithful. These policies undermine our witness. They hurt the church, not just the United Methodist Church, they hurt the whole church.

It is stupid. And it is unchristian.

Majoring in the Minors

So we have known and believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.
Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the day of judgment, because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love. We love because he first loved us. Those who say, “I love God,” and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also.
I John 4:16-21

As soon as we hear the words, “Church Trial,” we know we are in a strange place. It echoes of the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials. In a time when our culture is increasingly secular, this is one more piece of evidence that the church is irrelevant at best and toxic at worst.

As United Methodists, we tend to think of ourselves as fairly modern folk. We are practical and pragmatic and down to earth. We’re not strong on doctrine, but we are big on tolerance. The John Wesley theme verse is “God is love.” We believe in grace over judgment. We build hospitals and universities. Our slogan is “Open hearts. Open minds. Open doors.” We like to think that we are inclusive.

So the very idea of a church trial sounds wrong to us.

But here we are. The Rev. Frank Schaefer was convicted this week of officiating at the wedding of his gay son in Massachusetts in 2007. We are in the news all over the place. And that’s not a good thing.

I won’t go into the odd structure of church polity and unlikely coalitions that has led us to this sad spot, but this is where we are and we need to find a way out.

Few of us were surprised when the jury of thirteen clergy from Eastern Pennsylvania found Rev. Schaefer guilty of violating the Discipline by officiating at the wedding. But most of us were shocked by the penalty. He will be suspended for thirty days. That in itself is not a big deal. But this is how Bishop Peggy Johnson states what happens after the suspension:

“If at the end of 30 days, Rev. Schaefer has determined that he cannot uphold the Church’s Discipline in its entirety, he must surrender his credentials.”

If it were not so serious, it would really be quite amusing. If you have read even part of the Book of Discipline, then you already know that there is no one who “uphold(s) the Church’s Discipline it its entirety.” There is a lot in there. The Discipline supports gun control, unions and collective bargaining, a woman’s right to an abortion, and the United Nations. It is against war, gambling, torture, and the death penalty. Beyond the big and controversial issues, there are hundreds of rules about how we do our business. Most of us can find something in there that we do not want to “uphold.”

But of course they don’t care whether he supports the Discipline in its entirety. They only care about one thing. Will he promise not to celebrate another same sex wedding?

The great Methodist preacher of the mid-twentieth century Henry Hitt Crane used to call this “majoring in the minors.”

Do we really believe excluding gay people is the big issue of our time? Is this where Christian faith rises or falls?

I often get smiles and snickers when I explain the United Methodist position on gambling. And it is hard to see the connection between the social harm of gambling addictions and a church raffle. But at least we don’t conduct any church trials over raffles.

I used to think that maybe in the not too distant future we would look back on all of this foolishness and have a good laugh. But that’s not going to happen. When we look back we will be in tears. We will weep for the lives we have damaged, the people we have hurt, and the incalculable damage we have done to our Christian witness.

Equal Rights, Equal Marriage and the United Methodist Church

“And will not God grant justice to his chosen ones who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long in helping them? I tell you, he will quickly grant justice to them. And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”
Luke 18:7-8

In October of 1960 Melvin Talbert was a seminary student in Atlanta, Georgia, and a member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. came to Atlanta to participate with the students in the first sit-in demonstrations in the city, and he was arrested with them. They spent three days and three nights together in a jail cell. Talbert said that event was one of the formative experiences of his life.

This past October, Bishop Talbert traveled from his home in Nashville to Center Point, Alabama, near Birmingham, to celebrate the wedding of Joe Openshaw and Bobby Prince. The two men were legally married in Washington, D.C., but they wanted a Christian wedding. And they asked Bishop Talbert to officiate because of his support for the rights of LGBT persons, especially within the United Methodist Church.

For Bishop Talbert, the sit-in and the wedding are related. In both cases it is about civil rights.

Before he went to Alabama to preside at the wedding, Bishop Talbert notified Bishop Debra Wallace-Padgett, resident bishop of the North Alabama Conference, of his plans. She responded by requesting that he not perform the ceremony in the area where she serves. She consulted with Bishop Rosemarie Wenner, president of the Council of Bishops, and Bishop Wenner convened the Executive Committee of the Council of Bishops. The Executive Committee issued a statement requesting that Bishop Talbert not officiate at the wedding. They reminded Bishop Talbert that, “The bishops of the church are bound together in a covenant and all ordained elders are committed to uphold the Book of Discipline.” They also pointed out that, "Conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual unions; or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies" are chargeable offenses in the United Methodist Church (¶2702.1.b).

There are deep ironies in this.

It is not that long ago that this same Book of Discipline, to which Bishops Wenner and Wallace-Padgett give allegiance, prevented women from being ordained, let alone becoming bishops in the church.

The Discipline is an imperfect evolving document. It did not condemn slavery until 1844, when what was then the “Methodist Episcopal Church” split and the “Methodist Episcopal Church South” became a separate denomination, which tolerated the institution of slavery. When the two denominations reunited in 1939, provision was made for a separate “Central Conference,” where African-American churches were segregated from white churches. And that segregation was approved until 1968.

The Discipline is revised every four years at what we call a “General Conference” that brings together representatives from United Methodist conferences around the world. The language on homosexuality will change soon. Maybe in 2016. Probably no later than 2020.

As the Council of Bishops likes to remind us, we are a world wide church. On this issue the African bishops stand against any change because they fear that if they do not maintain a strong opposition to homosexuality it will put them at a disadvantage in their cultural struggles with Islam and Islamic fundamentalists. If the church is to hold together there will have to be some sort of compromise that allows for the different cultural realities in Africa and North America while still affirming basic human rights.

In the meantime, the Council of Bishops, after meeting this week, called on Bishops Wenner and Wallace-Padgett to file charges against Bishop Talbert.

In explaining their actions, the bishops said that, “The purpose of the Council of Bishops is to lead the church in its mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” Did anyone laugh at the irony of that statement? How can we transform the world if we cannot transform the church? It would be more accurate to say that their purpose is to lead the church in maintaining the status quo. And let’s be honest, making disciples of Jesus Christ and maintaining the status quo are mutually exclusive.

The bishops did take a step forward by publicly acknowledging that the church is not of one mind on this issue, and that the Council of Bishops is not of one mind. They go on to note that “pain exists throughout the connection, including persons who support Bishop Talbert’s actions and persons who object to them.” What they fail to say is that the pain is not equal. The pain felt by those who are excluded is not the same as the pain felt by those who want to do the excluding and feel like their ability to exclude is being eroded.

After telling the parable of the widow who pleads for justice from an unjust judge, Jesus asks, “will not God grant justice to his chosen ones who cry to him day and night?” Bishop Talbert lived out that parable when he was arrested with Dr. King, and he has lived it out again more than fifty years later in confronting his colleagues on the Council of Bishops. The good news is that ultimately, he knows how the story will end.




The complete statement from the Council of Bishops is printed below:

STATEMENT

OF

THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS

On October 26, 2013, retired Bishop Melvin Talbert conducted a ceremony celebrating the marriage of a same-gender couple in Center Point, Alabama. Prior to October 26, 2013 Bishop Talbert advised Bishop Debra Wallace-Padgett, resident bishop of the North Alabama Conference, of his intention. Bishop Wallace-Padgett requested that Bishop Talbert not perform the ceremony in the area in which she serves. After conversation with Bishop Wallace-Padgett, Bishop Rosemarie Wenner, president of the Council of Bishops, engaged the Executive Committee of the Council of Bishops in a discussion about the proposed action. On October 21, 2013, the Executive Committee issued a statement requesting Bishop Talbert not to perform the ceremony in Bishop Wallace-Padgett’s area.

They said, in part,

“The bishops of the church are bound together in a covenant and all ordained elders are committed to uphold the Book of Discipline. "Conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual unions; or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies" are chargeable offenses in the United Methodist Church (¶2702.1.b).

The actions of Bishop Talbert raise considerable concerns and have stimulated much conversation, reflection, and prayer among the members of the Council of Bishops. The Council recognizes the deep divisions and pain in our church over these issues. United Methodists are not of one mind, and followers of Christ and people of conscience hold conflicting views. These issues require continuing honest and respectful conversation as well as prayer throughout the church.

The purpose of the Council of Bishops is to lead the church in its mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. To that end, bishops are also required to “uphold the discipline and order of the Church…..and to share with other bishops in the oversight of the whole church.” (Para 403.1.f) When there are violations of the Book of Discipline, a response is required. However, the General Conference has given the Council of Bishops limited authority for the task of holding one another accountable. Such authority and accountability resides in the College of Bishops and the Jurisdiction or Central Conference Committees on Episcopacy. (Paragraph 413.and Paragraph 403.1.f)

Therefore, the Council of Bishops, after much prayer and conversation, takes the following actions:

We acknowledge that we, the Council of Bishops, and the Church are not of one mind in matters of human sexuality; pain exists throughout the connection, including persons who support Bishop Talbert’s actions and persons who object to them. We express our pastoral concern and care for all people.

We affirm the October 21, 2013 action of the Executive Committee which requested that Bishop Talbert not conduct a ceremony celebrating the marriage of a same gender couple in the North Alabama area.

We respectfully request that Bishop Wenner, President of the Council of Bishops, and Bishop Wallace-Padgett, Resident Bishop of the North Alabama Conference, address the action of Bishop Talbert and file a complaint under the provisions of Paragraph 413 for undermining the ministry of a colleague (Paragraph 2702.1f) and conducting a ceremony to celebrate the marriage of a same gender couple (Paragraph 2702.1b) within the bounds of the North Alabama Conference.

We recommend that the Executive Committee initiate a task force to lead honest and respectful conversations regarding human sexuality, race and gender in a world-wide perspective in our shared commitment to clear theological understanding of the mission and polity of the United Methodist Church.

As a Council of Bishops, we affirm the theological task articulated in the Book of Discipline (Paragraph 105, page 87). “United Methodists as a diverse people continue to strive for consensus in understanding the gospel. In our diversity, we are held together by a shared inheritance and a common desire to participate in the creative and redemptive activity of God. Our task is to articulate a vision in a way that will draw us together as a people in Mission….. We proceed with our theological task, trusting that the Spirit will grant us wisdom to continue our journey with the whole people of God.”

What Kind of a Church Are We?

“Woe to you hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth. So you also on the outside look righteous to others, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.” 
Matthew 23:27-28

Pastor Frank Schaefer of the Zion United Methodist Church in Iona, Pennsylvania will go on trial next month for officiating at his son’s same-sex wedding in Massachusetts six years ago. His actions almost slipped past the six year statute of limitations which the United Methodist Church has for such offenses, but a parishioner filed charges just before the clock ran out.

Our United Methodist Discipline (a book of by-laws) prohibits pastors from officiating at same sex marriages or blessing same sex relationships.

This isn’t the Inquisition. The worst case scenario for Pastor Frank is that he will lose his clergy credentials. But it’s bad enough.

Over the past few weeks, many of my colleagues have posted Facebook links to vigils for Pastor Frank or stories about the church trial. In response, someone asked, “What kind of a church puts people on trial?"

And that is the key question. What kind of a church are we? Or maybe more accurately, what kind of a church do we look like?

I could give a long explanation about United Methodist polity and the function of church trials in protecting the rights of clergy from overzealous bishops and district superintendents, but that really isn’t the point.

Pastor Frank’s son Tim came out in 2000, after contemplating suicide because his years of praying had not changed his sexuality, and he feared that he would be ostracized by his family and his faith community. Rev. Schaefer chose to affirm his son by officiating at his wedding, and now he is on trial for that.

As the political commentators like to say, the optics are not good.

Rev. Thomas Lambrecht, an outspoken opponent of equal marriage, told a reporter, “Sadly, our church is once again being led down the path of a costly and divisive trial by a pastor who chose to disregard the prayerful and consistent teaching of our church that Christian marriage is the holy union of one man and one woman. As a father, I share Rev. Schaefer’s desire to affirm his son, but there are ways of doing so that do not require a pastor to break the Discipline and the covenant that all United Methodist pastors agree to uphold.”

I can only imagine what a wonderful affirmation that would be.

Even if we don’t care about the civil rights issues, and even if we assume that Tim Schaefer would have gotten over his disappointment if his father had refused to officiate at his wedding, this would still be very bad.

I am a United Methodist for lots of very good reasons. I believe in John Wesley’s theology of grace and his emphasis on practical spirituality. But this is the church at its worst. It makes us look stupid or irrelevant, or both.

What We Have Lost

When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”And he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. Then he began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”
Luke 4:16-21

I am often struck by the distance between Jesus and the religion that bears his name. Our harmless, domesticated Jesus, committed to the normalcy of civilization, the preservation of privilege and the maintenance of the status quo has little in common with the radical prophet we meet in the Gospels. Christianity has marginalized and silenced him in ways that Pilate and Herod, and the Roman Empire could only dream about.

As we contemplate the fallout from the recent Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage, it is clear that one of the biggest losers is Christianity.

The problem is not the decision. As followers of Jesus, we might have hoped for a more sweeping affirmation of the rights of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, but the decision moved us in the right direction. The problem is that along the way, Christianity became identified with some of the ugliest and most bigoted arguments against the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

To be fair, identifying Christianity with the “anti-gay” side of this argument is largely a creation of the media. When the television folks look at this issue they often pair a gay activist (who may or may not be a person of faith) with an opponent of same sex marriage who self-identifies as a Christian. Ordinary mainstream Christians are generally ignored by the media. Opponents of same sex marriage almost always say they are against it because they are Christians. Supporters do not as often cite their faith as a reason for their support. But fairly or not, the perception is there.

When young people outside the church are asked what they think of when they think of Christianity, they come up with words like, “judgmental,” “hypocritical,” “narrow-minded,” “intolerant,” and “anti-scientific.”

How did we get so far from the Kingdom of God? Jesus called us to join with God in creating a place where “the hungry are filled with good things, and the rich are sent away empty,” “where the last shall be first and the first shall be last,” where the poor and marginalized have security and dignity, where we love our enemies and put the needs of others before our own. Instead, those who call themselves Christians seem determined to live in the cramped darkness of their own self-righteousness.

A century ago Walter Rauschenbusch called on the church to embrace the Social Gospel in response to the issues and concerns of that time. He called for the church to renew its emphasis on the Kingdom of God as the core message of the Gospel. He argued that the church must do this in order to be faithful to the call of Jesus, and he believed that this was what the world needed from the church. But he also argued forcefully that if the church failed to embrace the Social Gospel it would lose a whole generation of young people. The youth, he said, were already moving. Young people might not understand the theological nuances of biblical interpretation, but they could hear the call of Jesus and they have chosen to follow that call. The church, he argued, would lose its moral authority if it did not move with them.

Our young people today have grown up in a more secular environment. Most of them lack the biblical background that Rauschenbusch could take for granted even among youth who were not directly involved in any church. But today’s young people have followed their hearts and minds, and they have intuitively come out on the right side of this issue when too many of us in the church have come out on the wrong side.

Beyond the position they have taken, Christian opponents of same sex marriage have also done great damage by the way they got there. Almost invariably they are biblical literalists. Their arguments depend on a selective reading of Scripture which misses the great sweep of the biblical narrative. They have used the Bible as a weapon. In the process they have inflicted great harm on LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Queer or Questioning) persons, especially young people, and they have also convinced countless others that the Bible makes no sense.

The Supreme Court vote was a great victory, but it will take a long time to repair the damage done in the struggle.

Leaders Need to Lead

So Moses cried out to the Lord, “What shall I do with this people? They are almost ready to stone me.”The Lord said to Moses, “Go on ahead of the people, and take some of the elders of Israel with you; take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. I will be standing there in front of you on the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it, so that the people may drink.” Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel.
Exodus 17:4-6

In the wilderness, the people of Israel complained to Moses because they had no water. They cursed him for leading them out of Egypt so that they could die in the desert. Moses complained to God about the complaining of the people. God responded with a promise of water, but only if Moses would lead and “Go ahead of the people.” And when he went ahead, he would find God, “standing there in front of you.”

There are two messages here:
1. God is always leading us into the future.
2. Leaders need to lead.

A few days ago my friends (Facebook friends) at “Believe Out Loud” posted a picture of United Methodist Bishop Martin Mclee and commended him for speaking out against hate crimes. McLee said in part:

“The problem of bias crimes directed at members of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning Community continues. As Christians, we are called to respond. Let us begin by offering prayers for the victims and families of those harmed by hate crimes. I encourage pastors to provide anti-bias leadership by teaching and preaching about the harm of directing violence against anyone.”

In spite of the fact that opposition to hate crimes ought to be a no-brainer, statements condemning such violence are important and necessary. And pastors should give leadership by preaching and teaching about such issues.

I wish that Bishop McLee had shown similar leadership in his pastoral letter regarding the situation of the Rev. Thomas Ogletree who faces a church trial for officiating at the marriage of two gay men. In his letter to the New York Conference of the United Methodist Church, Bishop McLee wrote:

“Many of you may have read the recently published article in The New York Times that centered on same sex marriage and The United Methodist Church. The confidentiality requirements of the complaint process prevent me from discussing the case in detail. However, as is the case on many issues confronting the church today, there are multiple perspectives associated with human sexuality.”

That’s all he said about the issue. The letter went on for several paragraphs saying that the United Methodist Church is concerned about many important issues and that we are not a one issue denomination and we have work to do in the world. All of that is true and right and good. But he basically said nothing about the issue at hand.

Our denominational stance against full equality for our gay and lesbian sisters and brothers is not just a bureaucratic technicality. It has real world consequences. And it does emotional violence to innocent people. Emotional violence is not equivalent to physical violence, but it matters. And the emotional violence of telling people they are “less than” can encourage those who are inclined to be bullies.

Bishop McLee is constrained by the Discipline of the United Methodist Church. And he believes it is his duty to uphold that Discipline by letting the trial process unfold.

But while enforcing the Discipline, he could also say that on this issue it is simply wrong.

Bill O'Reilly, Dan Savage, and Bible Thumpers

For this reason, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do your duty, yet I would rather appeal to you on the basis of love—and I, Paul, do this as an old man, and now also as a prisoner of Christ Jesus. I am appealing to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprisonment. Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful both to you and to me. I am sending him, that is, my own heart, back to you. 
Philemon 1:8-12 

Recently on “The O’Reilly Factor,” Bill O’Reilly commented that in the debate over marriage equality, the strong arguments were all on the side of same sex marriage. They just want to be treated like everyone else in American, he said. “That’s a strong argument.” By contrast, he noted that all the opponents can do is “thump their Bibles.” And that, he opined, is not a good argument.

Not that long ago, Bill O’Reilly was criticizing those who had shifted toward supporting equal marriage for what he termed “pandering” to public opinion. And he mocked those who said that their perspectives were “evolving.” His own shift, if that is what it is, has been much more abrupt. And it represents a seismic shift in the argument.

The public sentiment in favor of equal marriage is growing at an amazing rate. And that is a very good thing.

But what is not a good thing is that the Bible has been “thumped” from both sides.

Opponents misuse it, and supporters ignore it or denigrate it.

A friend posted a quotation from Dan Savage that is indicative of how the Bible has been dismissed in the debate. Addressing a high school group in Washington State, Savage declared:

“The shortest book in the New Testament is a letter from Paul to a Christian slave owner about owning his Christian slave. And Paul doesn't say, 'Christians don't own people.' Paul talks about how Christians own people.... the Bible got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong: slavery. What are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? One hundred percent."

In spite of the fact that the Bible does not condemn slavery, at least not consistently, and there are many more verses condoning slavery than there are condemning it, we need to put that in historical perspective. Nearly two millennia after the last biblical writer wrote the last verse in the Bible, the framers of our constitution “got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong.” If Jefferson and his colleagues were wrong two hundred years ago, it’s not surprising that Paul was wrong two thousand years ago. We should also note that the “slaves” in Paul’s time were more like indentured servants than the slaves kept by the Founders.

But wait, there’s more.

Paul, like Jesus, was a radical egalitarian. In his letter to Philemon, he is appealing for the release of Onesimus. He hopes that Philemon will do this, out of a sense of Christian faith, rather than under compulsion, because he feels Paul’s appeal as a command. But one way or the other, he wants Onesimus freed and embraced as “a brother.” Paul understand the early Christian church to be an egalitarian community, and a model for what the whole world will eventually become when the Kingdom of God is realized “on earth as it is in heaven.”

John Wesley, who was deeply committed to biblical Christianity, was a life-long opponent of slavery. Wesley knew the many verses that condoned slavery, but he also saw that the whole thrust of the Bible, from the Exodus to Paul’s letters, was toward freedom and liberation.

While the founders were enshrining slavery in the Constitution, Wesley was condemning it. In his last letter, written to William Wilberforce, he writes: “O be not weary of well doing! Go on, in the name of God and in the power of his might, till even American slavery (the vilest that ever saw the sun) shall vanish away before it.”

Wesley did not oppose slavery in spite of his faith, but because of it. In the same way, we cannot develop an authentically Christian perspective on equal marriage by appealing to a few scattered verses of Scripture. We need to look for the broad themes and principles.

Something to Cheer About

Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. 
Philippians 4:8 

Brendon Ayanbadejo is not a household word. He is a linebacker for the world champion Baltimore Ravens, but I confess that I had never heard of him before a Maryland legislator, Emmert C. Burns Jr., wrote to Ravens management asking them to silence Mr. Ayanbadejo’s outspoken support for gay marriage.

In a letter to Ravens owner Steve Biscotti, Burns said, "I find it inconceivable that one of your players, Mr. Brendon Ayanbadejo, would publicly endorse Same-Sex marriage, specifically as a Ravens football player.” Burns went on to request “that you take the necessary action, as a National Football League Owner, to inhibit such expressions from your employees and that he be ordered to cease and desist such injurious actions. I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing."

That last sentence reflects poorly on the NFL and says something very positive about Mr. Ayanbadejo.

Chris Kluwe, a punter for the Minnesota Vikings responded with a profanity laced essay to assure Mr. Burns that Ayanbadejo was not the only one in the NFL speaking out for gay marriage. He also scolded Burns for his apparent indifference to the First Amendment. In more muted tones, the NFL and the Ravens responded in terms of free speech and tolerance.

As the Ravens addressed the media storm around Brendon Ayanbadejo, the San Francisco Forty-Niners had a storm of their own. Cornerback Chris Culliver told a radio interviewer that a gay player definitely would not be welcome on their team or in their locker room. Team management responded with declarations of tolerance and the promise that Mr. Culliver would apologize and do public penance. Seriously. If there is one thing the NFL knows, it’s marketing. You cannot say that kind of thing in San Francisco.

From my perspective, this was perfect. I had someone to cheer for and someone to root against.

But it turns out that the Culliver case was not that simple. He made the offensive remarks during an interview with radio host and comedian Artie Lange. The radio host described it as a “goofy interview” in which he asks all sorts of “stupid” questions. That’s not an excuse, but it does put the remarks in a different light.

And then there was the apology:

"The derogatory comments I made yesterday were a reflection of thoughts in my head, but they are not how I feel," Culliver said in a statement released by the team. "It has taken me seeing them in print to realize that they are hurtful and ugly. Those discriminating feelings are truly not in my heart. Further, I apologize to those who I have hurt and offended, and I pledge to learn and grow from this experience."
If it’s not the best apology ever, it’s close. The most important thing in the apology is what he didn’t say. He didn’t utter the classic phrase, “If anyone was offended.” And he didn’t offer any excuses. He called his own words “hurtful and ugly.” He didn’t tell us that he is really a good person. And he promised to learn and grow from the experience. Following up on his apology, he issued this statement:

“As an African American male, I should know better. Hate and discrimination have a lasting effect and word matter. I also have a responsibility to myself, and especially to my young fans to be a better role model. The kids who look up to me and other athletes are the future of our country, and our future deserves better than fear, hate and discrimination…I was wrong, and I want to learn how to make it right. That’s why I reached out to an organization called The Trevor Project…No child should ever feel like they are less than anyone else, and God has put me through this storm so I can learn from my mistakes and help make sure no child has to feel that way, again.”

My guess is that the Forty-Niners had their PR people working on this, but I am still impressed with his willingness to take responsibility for what he said and grow from the experience. Sounds like a stand up guy to me.

Conservative Christian Befriends Gay Activist

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” 
Matthew 5:43-48

A friend pointed me to a Huffington Post article by Shane Windmeyer, a nationally known gay rights advocate and the executive director of Campus Pride, about his friendship with Dan Cathy, President and Chief Operating Officer of Chick-fil-A.

Windemeyer tells of attending the Chick-fil-A bowl on New Year’s Day as Cathy’s personal guest and then notes, “For many this news of friendship might be shocking. After all, I am an out, 40-year-old gay man and a lifelong activist for equality. I am also the founder and executive director of Campus Pride, the leading national organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and ally college students. Just seven months ago our organization advanced a national campaign against Chick-fil-A for the millions of dollars it donated to anti-LGBT organizations and divisive political groups that work each day to harm hardworking LGBT young people, adults and our families. I have spent quite some time being angry at and deeply distrustful of Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A. If he had his way, my husband of 18 years and I would never be legally married.”

The story is surprising and moving. Dan Cathy initiated the contact. He listened respectfully to Windemeyer’s life journey, and in many ways he accepts him for who he is.

He writes: “Through all this, Dan and I shared respectful, enduring communication and built trust. His demeanor has always been one of kindness and openness. Even when I continued to directly question his public actions and the funding decisions, Dan embraced the opportunity to have dialogue and hear my perspective. He and I were committed to a better understanding of one another. Our mutual hope was to find common ground if possible, and to build respect no matter what. We learned about each other as people with opposing views, not as opposing people.”

And Chick-fil-A has done two significant things. They have stopped funding organizations or groups that denigrate LGBT persons, and they have drafted internal documents affirming their commitment to treat every person with dignity and respect. Their outside funding now focuses on youth, education, marriage enrichment and local communities.

It is a heartwarming story. Communication and mutual respect are good things and our country could use more of both.

When I first wrote about the Chik-fil-A controversy last summer, I said of Dan Cathy, that I believed him to be “in so many important other ways, a very good and decent person who tries to be a faithful Christian. He teaches a senior high Sunday School class. He lives by four basic practices, of worship, Bible study, prayer, and tithing. His ‘life verse’ is Deuteronomy 6:5, ‘Love the LORD you God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.’ It’s part of the Shema, and it’s also the first half of the Great Commandment to love God and neighbor.”

This story confirms that impression. Dan Cathy takes his faith seriously and he is trying to live it out. I respect his sincerity and his decency. I think he is wrong, but he is not mean, and that counts for a lot.

On the other hand, his choice to “love the sinner while hating the sin” has consequences. His stance gives cover to people with less compassion and more anger. Though it is not his intent, he is encouraging the bullies and the bigots.

And finally, I still expect more from someone who claims to be “a follower of Jesus.” Yes, faithful people can disagree. But only a shallow reading of scripture can sustain an understanding of the anti-gay agenda as growing out of Christianity or biblical faith.

Marriage Equality: A Response to Bishop Tobin

King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the Israelites, ‘You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you; for they will surely incline your heart to follow their gods;’ Solomon clung to these in love. Among his wives were seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart. 

I Kings 11:1-3 

In a recent column in The Rhode Island Catholic, Bishop Thomas Tobin urged the General Assembly to reject “same sex marriage.” The quotation marks are his. He called it “immoral and unnecessary.” In setting forth his argument against marriage equality, the Bishop wrote:

“The proposal to legalize same-sex marriage is an attempt to redefine the institution of marriage as it has existed in every culture from the very beginning of human history. Marriage between a man and a woman was designed by God for two specific purposes: to affirm the complementary roles of males and females in a loving relationship, and to provide a stable foundation for the procreation and raising of children. Homosexual relationships can achieve neither of those goals.”

The idea that marriage has been defined “in every culture from the very beginning of human history” as a relationship between one man and one woman comes as a great surprise to anyone who has read the Bible. The patriarchs all had several wives and in their stories the rivalry among the wives often plays a significant role in the narrative. And later we read of Saul and David and Solomon, whose wives and concubines were counted in the hundreds.

Marriage has been redefined countless times over the centuries as the roles of men and women have changed. Marriage is no longer defined as a business transaction between the woman’s father and her husband to be, in which she was sold as property. Our definition of marriage no longer includes the right of the husband to beat, or rape, or abandon his wife. It’s not that long ago that the wedding vows typically had the woman promising to “obey” her husband.

According to the Bishop, one of the purposes of marriage is to “affirm the complementary roles of males and females in a loving relationship.” But he does not say what those “complementary roles” are. Both men and women are capable of working outside the home. Each is capable of being the primary “at home parent.” Both can change diapers, cook supper, push strollers, and coach Little League.

In terms of raising children, we already know that children raised by same sex parents are no more likely to have problems than children in “traditional” families.

Bishop Tobin argues that “natural law, the Holy Scriptures, and long-standing religious tradition are very consistent in affirming that homosexual activity is sinful, contrary to God’s plan.”

He is entitled to his reading of Scripture, but it is important to point out that significant numbers of Christians and Jews read those passages differently. The Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., as well as both Conservative and Reform Judaism have read those same texts and come to very different conclusions. The argument from natural law is also subject to dispute. We do well to remember that in past centuries natural law was cited in support of slavery, segregation, and the subjugation of women.

Bishop Tobin called same sex marriage "immoral and unnecessary." He is wrong on both counts. It is moral and it is necessary. It is a basic question of civil rights and equal treatment under the law.

Gay and lesbian couples are already living in committed relationships. They are already raising families. They are our neighbors, co-workers and fellow citizens. They sit with us in church on Sunday mornings. They go to PTA meetings and soccer games. The relationships and the families already exist. The question is whether or not those relationships are given equal protection and recognition under the law.

As Christians, we look to Jesus’ teachings for guidance and direction. He never said anything about homosexuality, but he said a great deal about how we treat our neighbors. A verse from the Sermon on the Mount provides a good summary:

“In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)

Thank You, Bishop Talbert!

Do not remember the former things, or consider the things of old. ¹⁹I am about to do a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.

Isaiah 43:18-19

A group of United Methodist clergy and lay people have sent an open letter to the Council of Bishops asking that retired Bishop Melvin G. Talbert be publicly censured for encouraging disobedience to the church’s official position on homosexuality. The letter, signed by more than seventy prominent United Methodists (almost all of them men), expresses dismay at Bishop Talbert’s remarks at a gathering outside of General Conference, and repeated at the ordination service at the California Pacific Annual (regional) Conference ordination service.

In his remarks, Bishop Talbert declared that, “The derogatory rules and restrictions in the Book of Discipline are immoral and unjust and no longer deserve our loyalty and obedience.” He said, “the time has come for those of us who are faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ to do what is required of us… . The time has come to join in an act of biblical obedience.” He called on the 1,100 clergy who have declared their willingness to disobey church law and officiate at same sex marriages or civil unions to “stand firm.”

The letter writers express their “deep concern” that Bishop Talbert has threatened the discipline and order of the church, which he is charged with upholding, “by encouraging dissension, disunity and disobedience, and advocating anarchy and chaos in response to the actions of the 2012 General Conference, taken after focused prayer, study, and holy conferencing.”

It is worth noting that almost every United Methodist who has actually read the Discipline disagrees with some part of it. And many of the letter signers are actively engaged in trying to change portions of the Discipline with which they disagree. The Discipline is not an infallible document. And it is not eternal. It is re-written every four years. It simply represents what the majority of delegates to General Conference agreed to at a given point in time.

If the Discipline is changed every four years, then we can assume that those who advocate change believe that the previous version was “wrong” in some way. Historically, most of us would agree that the Discipline has been wrong in some significant ways. It took sixty years before the Discipline opposed slavery, and it took nearly two hundred years before the Discipline endorsed the ordination of women. It took more than a hundred years before the Discipline included a Social Creed.

Today is the 49^th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. I find myself thinking of Dr. King on many issues these days, but on this issue what comes to mind is the speech he gave in Montgomery in the spring of 1965. Some remember it as the “Our God Is Marching On” speech, others remember it from the repeated call and answer: “How long? Not long.”

I know you are asking today, "How long will it take?" (Speak, sir) Somebody’s asking, "How long will prejudice blind the visions of men, darken their understanding, and drive bright-eyed wisdom from her sacred throne?" Somebody’s asking, "When will wounded justice, lying prostrate on the streets . . . be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men?" Somebody’s asking, "When will the radiant star of hope be plunged against the nocturnal bosom of this lonely night, (Speak, speak, speak) plucked from weary souls with chains of fear and the manacles of death? How long will justice be crucified, (Speak) and truth bear it?" (Yes, sir)

I come to say to you this afternoon, however difficult the moment, (Yes, sir) however frustrating the hour, it will not be long, (No sir) because "truth crushed to earth will rise again." (Yes, sir)

How long? Not long, (Yes, sir) because "no lie can live forever." (Yes, sir) . . .

How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. (Yes, sir)

I don’t know how long it will be before the United Methodist Church rights this wrong, but it will not be long. And when we finally repent of our sin (what else can we call it?), Bishop Talbert will be one of the people we need to thank.