We’ve seen this before: UMC schism and conservative power

Our friends in the United Methodist Church (UMC) aren’t so united today. They have just completed a special conference that was specifically intended to resolve their conflict over issues re. sexuality and allow them to go forward. Their polity is different than The Episcopal Church (TEC): they are a truly global denomination where votes come from all around the world. In contrast, TEC is an American church in a loose federation with related independent churches in the Anglican Communion. (And you can certainly bet that conservatives in Anglicanism and the Church of England wish they had this degree of authority over TEC.) But I digress.

The Methodist book of discipline and other church policies are opposed to recognition of same sex marriage, or the full participation of LGBT people as ministers or bishops. In the US, the UMC is as divided as any other mainline on the subject, but has moved from “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” to “Pay No Attention to the Pastor In a Rainbow Stole”. They even have an out, lesbian bishop who technically runs afoul of the rules but in actuality continues to serve faithfully.

The Bishops of the global UMC proposed a policy that would allow individual churches or affiliations to allow and accept LGBT people, marriage, and service, without demanding that all churches do so. This “One Church Plan” was promoted as a way forward. But the well-organized conservatives weren’t having any. They organized an umbrella group called the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) and promised to leave UMC if any liberalization passed. As one wrote in advance,

You may not understand it but we will not remain in a church where pastors and bishops are free to promote and bless what we believe is contrary to Christian teaching and dishonoring to God.” We are told that we should find this plan acceptable because we will not be forced to perform marriages and blessings that we do not support. I can appreciate that progressives don’t truly understand us. But whether they can comprehend our reasoning or not, they need to hear it: It violates our consciences to be in a denomination that promotes what we believe counters God’s will and purposes. We can live in a church where there is disagreement about our church’s teaching about marriage and sexuality – we’ve done so for decades – if pastors and bishops who promised to uphold the church’s teachings actually do what they promised. What we cannot do is remain in a church with an official sexual ethic that denies the clear and consistent teaching of Scripture. Liberals don’t have to understand our thinking. But they would do well to take our warning seriously. The local option will create schism – and it is likely to be litigious, costly, and ugly.

So they proposed an alternative plan that not only did not relax the language against LGBT people, but made it more pronounced and punitive. This plan was found unconstitutional under the church’s own rules, but yesterday, the conference PASSED IT ANYWAY. It is not insignificant that there were also two plans proposed for how to divide the church property: how to leave.

And, they won.

 The traditionalists did a bang-up job of political organizing and counting the votes. The progressives were all busy talking about unity and community and listening and loving. The conservatives were on the floor getting the votes….We spent time yesterday openly discussing, “Now, how much do we have to pay to have to leave? Is a third of a property assessment OK?” It was just weird hearing us talk that way. That’s not the way we’ve talked previously. If you talk that way, it means the debate is almost moot. This may be a bad analogy, but as a pastor, when a couple comes to me and says, “We’re talking about getting a divorce. We’d like to hear your views on our marriage,” I say, “If you’ve gotten this far, you’re going to divorce. What do you want from me?” I kind of feel that way here.  https://religionnews.com/2019/02/26/bishop-will-willimon-on-why-no-plan-can-unite-united-methodists/

So, now what happens?  The WCA said it was their way or the highway, and they pulled it off.  So ....

As a committed centrist who has been working toward a compromise where all people would be welcome in The United Methodist Church, I've dealt enough with various members of WCA leadership to know that there will be no compromise. This is a matter of principle upon which they will not budge. No scenario that would permit an ordained gay and lesbian clergy or an elected lesbian bishop to be in any way affiliated with them will be entertained. 

Down the road, these same leaders I fear will become as hard-core about other issues as they are about LGBTQ exclusion. For those who stand for any "leftist" sounding cause (Health care reform? Gender equality? Compassionate immigration reform? Reasonable gun control?) or continue to call those to accountability for rejecting infant baptism, confirmation, and female clergy leadership, I have a hard time believing that eventually a target isn't going to be on your back, too. If the denomination starts heading "right," my centrist colleagues agree that LGBTQ exclusion isn't where things will end. https://www.ministrymatters.com/all/entry/9033/why-im-not-afraid-of-the-gracious-exit

Hmmmm. This is not unlike a similar purge of the Southern Baptists in the late 80s-90s, when the liberals moderates were driven out, leaving a conservative behemoth. And look where that got us.

But it's not just theological fundamentalism. You might also want to follow the money.

The goal of the Wesleyan Covenant Association, as far as United Methodism goes, is to make the denomination so intolerable to progressives and moderates that we leave the denomination. … 

The prize is ownership of United Methodism, which despite its myriad problems is still an unfathomably valuable institution. United Methodism owns an incredible amount of real estate, hospitals, academic institutions, churches, offices, conference centers, retreats, camps, nonprofit and for-profit entities, and the incredible controlled wealth of the United Methodist Foundations. Not to mention WesPath. By purging progressives and moderates, they will lose some churches and conference centers and perhaps entire Annual Conferences, but they will retain ownership of all of the rest. http://um-insight.net/perspectives/jeremy-smith/the-wca-is-just-an-insurance-policy-in-case-their-umc-takeov/

So, the money matters.

Back when Bishop Gene Robinson was elected, there was a similar conflict between conservatives and liberals in TEC. You may have recalled the bitter vitriol that ensued. But what you may not remember is that a shadowy conservative money-group, the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), was up to its elbows in dirty water. Episcopalian journalist Jim Naughton followed the threads and wrote a hugely important piece called “Following the Money” that linked the IRD to a number of conservative foundations.

These foundations have provided millions of dollars to the IRD which, in a fundraising appeal in 2000, said it sought to "restructure the permanent governing structure" of "theologically flawed" Protestant denominations and to "discredit and diminish the Religious Left's influence."

Importantly, this was not limited to TEC, but also targeted the Methodists and the Presbyterians.  HMMMM.  (Our Blog Father, Father Jake Stops the World, also has a summary about the TEC experience).

Fortunately, the IRDs efforts to overturn TEC didn't work.  The contentious fights in the Episcopal Church from 2006 on eventually led to the broad acceptance of LGBT ministers and marriages (with some holdouts). The fiercest conservatives left to form their own group, ACNA, which has never been formally recognized by the Anglican Communion.

Blogfather Fr Jake makes an excellent case in his latest post for the IRD being deep in this Methodist mess.

 Meanwhile, lots of people are hurting. The arguments on Twitter were passionate and in some cases, cruel (aside: Twitter is a cesspool, but is invaluable for following breaking action. It’s also like eating a large bag of potato chips entirely in one sitting: you know it’s not good for you, and you will regret it, but you can’t stop).

 There’s a tendency of Episcopalians to want to bring these hurting liberal and LGBT Methodists in. But as someone said, they are grief stricken and have just lost a loved one. Don’t try to set them up on a date just yet.   Listen, be present, and recognize they may simply need a sabbatical before going back to fight. They may want to try to keep the church they love intact.  They'll need lots of support to do so.

Here we go again, Albany edition

The Bishop of Albany, who is remarkably named Love, refuses to accept the results of General Convention and the resolution B012. To remind you, this was widely viewed as a compromise on the issue of same sex marriages.  As the ENS described it,

The resolution provides for:

• Giving rectors or clergy in charge of a congregation the ability to provide access to the trial use of the marriage rites for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Resolution A054-2015 and the original version of B012 said that clergy could only use the rites under the direction of their bishop.
• Requiring that, if a bishop “holds a theological position that does not embrace marriage for same-sex couples,” he or she may invite another bishop, if necessary, to provide “pastoral support” to any couple desiring to use the rites, as well as to the clergy member and congregation involved. In any case, an outside bishop must be asked to take requests for remarriage if either member of the couple is divorced to fulfill a canonical requirement that applies to opposite-sex couples.
• Continuing trial use of the rites until the completion of the next comprehensive revision of the Book of Common Prayer

Of course, no priest or parish can be required to marry LGBT people,  or indeed anyone else.  But for those who want to , they will be able to.  Of the 100 dioceses in the US Episcopal Church, this really applies to the 8 holdouts, those few bishops who are opposed to same sex couples marrying in the church.  Seven of those bishops have indicated that they will live within these rules, and their choices range from a temporary and limited role for a fellow Bishop, to refusing to have anything to do with the inclusive parishes (except presumably accept their money).  But still, progress, particularly for gay people yearning to be recognized in their faith community, and cover for the bishops who don't have to have anything to do with them.

And then there's Bishop Love of Albany NY.  He released a letter refusing to allow ANY LGBT people marriage in his Diocese, resolution or no resolution.  As the Episcopal Cafe notes, this is a direct challenge to the authority of convention.

The letter is hard and hurtful.  He uses the term "same sex attracted" which is the conservative's current favorite in their attempt to deny our lived reality and make us into a sickness.  (I wrote years ago here about the effort to make us a pathology, rather than a normal human variant.)

Bishop Love writes,

The fact that some in today’s sexually confused society (to include 5 of the 9 U.S. Supreme Court Justices in2015) may have broadened their understanding of marriage to be more inclusive, allowing for same-sex marriages, doesn’t mean that God, “the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth”(BCP 96) has changed His mind.....B012 by its very intent of making liturgies available for same-sex marriages, (while perhaps well intended) is in fact doing a great disservice and injustice to our gay and lesbian Brothers and Sisters in Christ, by leading them to believe that God gives his blessing to the sharing of sexual intimacy within a same-sex relationship

There is the usual citation of Levitical and Pauline clobber passages, and he defines us as distorted and unnatural, struggling with this apparent illness of "same sex attraction". And there are threats:

There are many in the Diocese of Albany who have made it clear that they will not stand for such false teaching or actions and will leave – thus the blood bath and opening of the flood gates that have ravaged other dioceses will come to Albany if B012 is enacted in this Diocese.

Given that Albany and surrounding areas are not backwards or ignorant, I'm going to assume that there are just as many who are outraged at this letter.

And this:

To engage in sexual intimacy outside of marriage between a man and women, is against God’s will and therefore sinful andneeds to be repented of, NOT encouraged or told it is ok.

So, about all those straight couples who are having sex before or outside of marriage--what 's he doing about them?

But what I really want to do is focus on this attempt to minimize our marriages and our relationships.

the Bible does not forbid two people of the same sex from loving one another in the sense of caring deeply or having a strong sense of affection for one another. Strong friendships are a blessing and gift. As already mentioned, God commands us to love one anotherboth male and female. The Bible doesn’t forbid two people of the same sex from sharing a home or life together. It doesn’t forbid two people of the same sex from being legal guardians for oneanother or health care proxies for one another. All God has said through Holy Scripture regarding relations between two men or two women is that they should not enter into sexual relations with one another, and that marriage is reserved for the joining together of a man and woman. 

As we have gone over and over, marriage is not about sex.   Many married couples cannot or choose not to engage in genital behavior, for one thing.  For another, even a sexually active couple spends far more of their time out of bed than in it, and if they are sensible, always working on all the other aspects of relationship that make a marriage.

Moreover, we are not suddenly un-gay when we are not having sex.

Dear Bishop Gene Robinson addressed this lunacy a number of years ago, when the Church of  England decided that gay priests could have civil partnerships as long as they promised to be celibate:

I don't care whether any couple, gay or straight, has sexual intimacy or not. That's not my business. That's their business. But to require someone to give up this piece of one's life, which is so central to who each of us is as a human being, just seems, it seems cruel, and it also, it bespeaks something that I think is not talked about enough around the issue of gay sexuality, which is that gay is not something you do, it's something we are. 

I'm not just gay when I'm making love to my husband. I'm gay all the time. I'm gay right this minute talking to you. And it affects how I relate to the world, how I relate to people. And it comes out of this notion that, you know, it's OK to be gay as long as you don't act on it. 

Well first of all, I don't think that's - I think that statement is disingenuous because the people who say that don't act as all as if it's OK to be gay. But taking them at their word, you know, when do you become gay? I laughingly will say to a more conservative audience, you know, OK, so if it's OK to be gay but not act on it, could two men live together? Could we sleep in the same bedroom if we slept in twin beds? 

Well, could we sleep in the same bed if we didn't touch each other? Well, could we touch each other as long as we only held hands? I mean, at what point, at what point is it gay? Do you know what I mean? It just doesn't make any sense. And it comes out of what I think is a very male understanding of sexuality, which is you're only being sexual when you're making love. 

But the fact of the matter is we are sexual all the time, and this bifurcation of, you know, being gay versus acting on it just seems to me ludicrous at best and cruel at worst.

Indeed.  But here we are, again, with one last holdout.  Bishop Love has drawn a line in the sand, to the dismay of some, but not all, of his flock.  He stands defiant, waiting to see what will happen.  Bishops in neighboring Dioceses offer support to those affected. Presiding Bishop Michael Curry writes that he is considering the implications, and reminds us

As members of the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12), we also are committed to respecting the conscience of those who hold opinions that differ from the official policy of The Episcopal Church regarding the sacrament of marriage. It should be noted that the canons of The Episcopal Church give authority to all members of the clergy to decline to officiate a marriage for reasons of conscience, and Resolution B012 of the 79th General Convention does not change this fact. 

Indeed it is Bishop Love who does not respect the conscience of those who disagree.

PB Curry also says, “In all matters, those of us who have taken vows to obey the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church must act in ways that reflect and uphold the discernment and decisions of the General Convention of the Church.”


Discussions on the Episcopal Cafe suggest that due to differences in New York state law, we aren't going to see an attempt to walk away with the whole Diocese a la Mark Lawrence in South Carolina.  It appears that Bishop Love wants to martyr himself on Title IV, which will bring scandal and bad press on the church he presumes to love.  He should do the honorable thing, and resign.  But I'm betting he wants to be a martyr to the Big Bad Gay Agenda.

News from the C of E: Bishop comes out

As you may know, our friends across the Pond are having a bit of a wrestle about Teh Gayz.  Although marriage equality is the law of the land, the Church of England (which is established by the State) has managed to get legislation that actually prevents them from recognizing, performing, or participating in same sex marriages, and that inoculates them against accusations of bias for this. Priests and bishops are "allowed" to be gay as long as they are celibate, and under no circumstances can they marry a same sex partner. 

There have been a few cases where priests have married, and been fired, or lost their licenses.  I understand that a letter is forthcoming where a number of gay priests will out themselves as being married.

And, in a reflection of the schism that happened here, some conservatives have started making plans for a shadow synod, a possible break away. That would suggest they know they are going to lose.

Perhaps their fear was inspired by a comment from  Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby (my emphasis)

Welby talked of an "incredible clash that is so important to so many people and goes to the heart of the identity of so many people". He added: "There isn't a simple solution... I haven't got a good answer." To applause, he said "I am constantly consumed with horror" at the way in which the Church has treated the gay community.

But the big news today,  the first C of E Bishop has outed himself, before he was outed by a journalist.

The bishop of Grantham has become the first Church of England bishop to publicly declare that he is gay and in a relationship. In a move that will be embraced by campaigners for equality but is likely to alarm conservatives who fear the church is moving away from traditional teachings, Nicholas Chamberlain said there had been no secret about his long-term – albeit celibate – relationship with his partner. ...

Chamberlain was consecrated last November, and all those involved in his appointment – including Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury – were aware of his personal situation. ...

Chamberlain said he adhered to church guidelines, under which gay clergy must be celibate and are not permitted to marry. In the appointments process, “We explored what it would mean for me as a bishop to be living within those guidelines,” he said.

The celibacy thing allows people to pretend that a gay man isn't actually gay.   But relationships are about much more than sex.  And, as  Bishop Gene Robinson has said, when this celibacy policy in the C of E was first promulgated,

I have to tell you this infuriates me and disappoints me. Let me try to say why. I don't care whether any couple, gay or straight, has sexual intimacy or not. That's not my business. That's their business. But to require someone to give up this piece of one's life, which is so central to who each of us is as a human being, just seems, it seems cruel, and it also, it bespeaks something that I think is not talked about enough around the issue of gay sexuality, which is that gay is not something you do, it's something we are.... 

I laughingly will say to a more conservative audience, you know, OK, so if it's OK to be gay but not act on it, could two men live together? Could we sleep in the same bedroom if we slept in twin beds?

Well, could we sleep in the same bed if we didn't touch each other? Well, could we touch each other as long as we only held hands? I mean, at what point, at what point is it gay? Do you know what I mean? It just doesn't make any sense. And it comes out of what I think is a very male understanding of sexuality, which is you're only being sexual when you're making love.  

But the fact of the matter is we are sexual all the time, and this bifurcation of, you know, being gay versus acting on it just seems to me ludicrous at best and cruel at worst.

Meanwhile, expect heads to start exploding in the C of E in any minute....

Fear and the Religious Right: a role for liturgical practice?

BP and I were chatting on the way home from Church this morning as I told her about Bp Gene Robinson's latest article in The Daily Beast, Even After Hobby Lobby, the Religious Right is still terrified.     Bp Gene begins with a description of attending a service at the mega church of Pastor Jim Garlow, whom we know in San Diego as one of the biggest proponents of Prop H8.

I get my latte and am assured that I am welcome to take it with me to my seat in the church. I find a seat, which is plush and comfortable, and sure enough, there’s a cup holder for my coffee. 

Latte?  Really?

I am struck by the starkness of the worship space: no windows, all black, no cross or stained glass, and not a single sign that this is a place of worship. ... It’s hard to tell, really, when the service starts; it just seems to grow organically, with additional people coming onto the stage over the course of 15 minutes, everyone dressed in jeans and comfortable clothing. The sense of expectation grows minute by minute. 

....Although there is a brief prayer early on, the service seems oddly devoid of any mention of God, much less Jesus. ....  soon, the mood turns dark. In between the uplifting songs, the message is: they’re coming to get us. One by one, the speakers lay out the parameters of the siege under which Christians live, attacked by liberal and godless forces on every side. ....Every message, action and gesture seems calculated to ratchet up the anxiety of those who are listening. And then it’s over. Just like that.

Bishop Gene goes on:

I honestly don’t know how typical such a service is among evangelicals, bent on making people fearful, but if you left that service feeling hopeful, at peace with God, and eager to help the poor and needy, then you weren’t paying attention. It is no wonder to me that many conservative, Christian people are fearful, and believe that there is a war on religion (especially Christians) in this country. After all, it is drummed into them every week. ....

Within only a day or two after the Hobby Lobby ruling, prominent evangelicals called upon President Obama to declare broad religious exemptions to his upcoming executive order banning discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people by federal contractors. Just stop and think about the image of religious people pleading for the “right” to discriminate against certain fellow citizens. What would Jesus do, indeed?!

One of the most striking things in his article is not just the fear-mongering-- we know that one of the biggest concerns expressed by Evangelicals is the idea that they will be forced to marry LGBT people.  (You know, the way Roman Catholics are forced to marry divorced people. Yeah, right.) But the description of that service, coming on a day when we enjoyed a full throated chanted service with clouds of incense and Latin anthems--it seemed completely foreign to us.

We're liturgical people, BP and I, born Roman Catholics, and now high Episcopalians.  I've never been to an evangelical church (heck, I found the Roman Catholic guitar mass a bit trying) and it sounds like it can be whatever the pastor wants it to be. Not the pattern of the liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Table, not the rhythm of the first and second readings and then the Gospel, not the A-B-C triennial cycle of whose Gospel is read, not the commonality across mainline protestant and Roman Catholic churches all engaging the same verses.  Part of the appeal to me in attending Mass is that ancient liturgical rhythm and the structure it gives.  And the discipline that structure gives the preacher, too.

Formerly-evangelical blogger Rachel Held Evans has with some sorrow left her evangelical roots and is worshiping with Episcopalians these days.  And that means, she is not only in a liturgical community, but one that uses the daily lectionary.  It's not up to the pastor to pick and choose a verse to preach on. Again, a discipline and a  structure.  She writes 

Suddenly, I like[d] the idea of having an “assignment,” a sort of spiritual and creative challenge that kept the focus on the text and not on me.....I discovered this whole world of online collaboration happening among clergy from Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Baptist, and Lutheran churches (and more!) all working through the same few passages in preparation for their services that week. And they weren’t just thinking about their sermons. They were joining with artists and musicians and liturgists and Sunday school teachers and writers and laypeople to think about how Luke 17:5-10 might translate into art, worship, poetry, children’s messages, even bulletin designs. (Even after the sermon was finished, I loved checking the blogs and sermon podcasts of some of my favorite pastors to see their “take” on the passage.)

And it struck me: This is exactly how the Bible is meant to be engaged—collaboratively, in community, with a diversity of people and perspectives represented.

So, the question I ask here is whether the Evangelical Protestants, by abandoning that liturgical structure, have made themselves targets for fear-mongering that blocks out the message, There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear.  

You know, maybe they should try preaching on that verse.

On public prayer

Retired Bishop Gene Robinson reflects on the Supreme Court's decision on prayer.

...just because we can,should we? Wouldn’t it be the “Christian” thing to do, to show a bit of generosity of spirit and sensitivity to those whose beliefs differ from our own? If we are going to have public prayers (something worth debating another time), couldn’t they strive to include every person of whatever faith? I tried to do that for the President-elect. I’m still proud of my attempt. Here it is: 

Oh God of our many understandings, we pray that you will… 

Bless us with tears for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women from many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS. 

Bless us with anger at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
Bless us with discomfort at the easy, simplistic “answers” we’ve preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and the world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future. 

Bless us with patience and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be “fixed” anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.
Bless us with humility open to understanding that our own needs must always be balanced with those of the world. 

Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences. 

Bless us with compassion and generosity remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.

If you don't remember it, that was his prayer at the first inauguration of Barack Obama.  Robinson says, "After the prayer, I had numerous Jews and Muslims come to me in tears, saying that never before had they felt a part of such public prayer."

From the other side, not so much.

From conservative Christians I got voluminous hate mail accusing me of missing the opportunity to save souls by invoking the name of Jesus Christ, and judging me to have denied Christ like Peter and betrayed Christ like Judas. As for me, I am not worried about meeting Christ one day and hearing firsthand what he has to say about that prayer.

Because nothing invokes Christ like hate mail.

May I sit here with you?

Over at the Lead, there is a spirited conversation going on based on this new policy by Bishop Edward Little in N. Indiana

First, the provisional liturgy entitled “The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant” is not authorized for use in the Diocese of Northern Indiana. There will be no exceptions to this policy.

Second, priests of the Diocese of Northern Indiana who, for pastoral reasons, wish to use “The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant” may travel to a neighboring diocese to do so. …

And of course, for many of us it brought to mind this recent report

[Charles] Wilson and his bride Te'Andrea were to be married at the First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs [MS] on July 21. But after their rehearsal two nights before, the church's pastor sought to move the service, saying some congregants didn't want two black people to get married in the orange-brick sanctuary.

The Rev. Stan Weatherford married the Wilsons as scheduled in another sanctuary….. Weatherford says the relocation was a request meant to avoid conflict. The Wilsons say it was a demand, with Weatherford saying the congregation would fire him if he married the pair in his church.

The parallel seems obvious, doesn’t it?  I'm sure  all of us find it reprehensible that a church would deny a couple a wedding based on their race. But the wedding did occur, with the same minister, just in a different church. Does that ameliorate it? Of course not. The pain of rejection is there.  And, just so for a gay couple in N. Indiana.  That is the same thing.

(Aside:  One commenter at the Lead brought up the fact that being black is not like being gay. To which I would respond, no, it’s not like being gay. Nor is being a woman, or being a Jew. The experience of people in each of these groups is distinct from those in every other, and indeed unique. But at another level, they are the same, in their experience of being treated as “less than” in a variety of contexts. Each group may experience discrimination in a different way, but what is common is that they experience discrimination, based on who they are—whether that is classified by race, sex, orientation,  religion.....)

The conversation at the Lead is divided between two factions: those who know Bishop Little, find him to be an honorable man, and consider this a reasonable effort to accommodate (since he allows his priests to travel without sanction), and those who find this a cop-out, so “because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I spit you out”. Let it be noted that both sides include passionate supporters of marriage equality.

Bishop Little goes on (again, via the Lead )

I have attempted in this two-point policy to find a solution that will honor the conscience of all. ….. In recent years, I have been both vocal and quite public about the importance of creating a “safe space” for people of divergent theological convictions. This policy is an attempt to do just that. While the solution is far from perfect, it will – at least in the short term – provide space for everyone to exercise conscience, and will require no one to act in a way that violates the deepest convictions of heart and mind.

My initial response was “why not just let the parishes decide if they want to do it?” which is the reasonable solution in many dioceses. But is that really any different? If you are a gay person and your parish and vestry are not willing to use this liturgy, you still must travel elsewhere. The injustice, the rejection continues.

My next response is to think this is an example of via media, and while imperfect, may be inevitable if you are to maintain a big tent and really respect honorable differences. Because I am quite sure there are people (and it seems Bishop Little is one) who agonize over this issue but can’t in good conscience move forward. I happen to think they are wrong, but I can, indeed I MUST respect their conviction firmly held, as long as they do not engage in lies and hate.    I must work to educate them, not vilify them.  I must keep the conversation open.

I have also thought of this as I’ve seen responses to the Skyline Church event in San Diego, where right-wing Evangelical Jim Garlow hosted a “conversation on marriage”. By most accounts, this wasn’t really a conversation: the anti-marriage equality representatives Robert Gagnon and Jennifer Roback Morse gave the same lectures about the Bible, evil gays and sex, while the pro-equality side of John Corvino and Bishop Gene Robinson focused on real people—the reminder that “we are all beloved children of God”, not pieces on a chessboard. The initial reaction of some advocates is “this was just another opportunity for them to bash us.”

The Blog of St Paul’s Cathedral, aptly called “All Our Voices”, is running a series all week long with individual responses to the event.  And, there are strong responses taking on the theology of Robert Gagnon, and rebutting the comments of Roback Morse, as there should be.

But what’s REALLY becoming interesting to me is less what went on up there on the platform, than the fact of people being there in the chairs.  Many people have commented that it was significant to be seated in the same room, civilly listening to one another, even if disagreeing passionately. One attendee commented on the concept of hospitality and that this requires something from the host AND from the guest. Indeed, apparently Garlow received threats over the event. (I sure hope those weren’t from “our side”. ) And Bishop Gene was, as ever, gracious and loving. (I put him in the same category of Desmond Tutu – would that more Christians modeled themselves on those two Bishops!)

At the end of the event, Garlow apparently remarked that he didn’t think any minds were changed. Perhaps not. But perhaps some hearts were, simply by virtue of sitting in the same room.  And I wish that people like Bishop Little, the lukewarm bishop, could have attended.

And so, although I share the frustration with Bishop Little, I will recognize that his statement is an effort to move forward, one that opens a door where none was before.  Even it's a back door.    Even if he's lukewarm. 

Because a thoughtful host can learn something from a gracious guest.

Skyline Church and Robert Gagnon

One of the speakers at the "Conversation on Marriage" at conservative Skyline Church on Sunday was theologian Robert Gagnon.  One person who attended said he had a very slick Powerpoint presentation about how Jesus would have hated Teh Gay,  and managed to wrap up homosexuality with incest, polygamy, and bestiality.  Some discredited "science" was thrown in for good measure,  probably from  the long-discredited Paul Cameron.

(A large group of Episcopalians attended the event, many from St Paul's Cathedral San Diego and some from as far away as Palm Springs.  Apparently the new Diocesan t-shirt with the "fearless love" slogan was also spotted in the audience. You can read more about it on the St Paul's Cathedral Blog, which is running a series all week with parishioner feedback.  Take home message is that Bishop Robinson rocks!)

Gagnon's gig is to show that the Bible is firmly against gays.  If you are interested in a critique of Robert Gagnon's parsing of ancient text, you can find one here by philologist Jean-Fabrice Nardelli (via BoxTurtleBulletin)

Gagnon doesn't like the criticism, so there has been some back and forth.  Here's an example of the Nardelli's recent riposte:

I focussed mostly on details, because if Gagnon did not deploy them with sufficiently scholarly standards  of competence, as I am convinced is the case, the main thesis of his monograph rests  on quicksand. 

Ouch!

(H/T reader andrewdb)

A conversation on marriage in San Diego

Jim Garlow is an evangelical preacher who was one of the major advocates of Proposition 8 in California. His home base is the huge Skyline Church in San Diego. Skyline Church is holding a "conversation on marriage" on Sunday evening the 29th, featuring prominent equality opponents Robert Gagnon and Jennifer Roback Morse. Same old same old, right?

Wrong. Pastor Garlow also wants to represent the other side. The other panelists are John Corvino and (drum roll, please) Bishop Gene Robinson!

Garlow promises a respectful hearing, not a cultural blindsiding. We take him at his word and promise the same. San Diego Episcopalians will attend to give witness to LGBT people of faith.

MadPriest on Gene Robinson

Over at OCICBW, MadPriest argues that TEC, by choosing Gene Robinson as a Bishop, had a disproportionate impact on the movement of LGBT equality. He writes,

I truly believe that if the Episcopal Church had not ordained Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire, if there had been no fight with those within TEC who opposed the ordination and if TEC had not been marginalised within the Anglican Communion by Rowan Williams, then the recent outrage in the US in response to the teenage, gay suicides would not have happened. There would also be far fewer gay people among Obama's nominated officers and no states voting to allow same sex marriages or any of the other advancements in justice for gay people that have happened over the last few years.

….The fact that The Episcopal Church is a church has been a Godsend. The media would never have been so attracted by any other type of organisation standing up for gay rights for the same reason they don't write about a manager of a drinks vending machine company having an affair with his secretary but will splash a priest's infidelity all over the front page.

I agree with MadPriest. I can tell you why I started exploring the Episcopal blogosphere seriously, and TEC as a home for BP: Gene Robinson. Yes, I was interested in LGBT rights and religion's effect on them, but the statement made by Gene Robinson's election was profound.

Elsewhere, I have written:

I have long felt, as I'm sure have many of you, that the log jam broke with the election of Bishop Gene Robinson in 2003. Not just breaking a logjam of exclusion of GLBT people from all levels of the Episcopal Church, but also a reaffirmation, and a challenge against the shrill voices of the right wing who claimed to define the concept of "Christian" . I think Bishop Gene helped voices of inclusive faith coalesce and reclaim "Christianity" from a narrow political movement. And I think history will see his election, and the coalitions it created, as a hugely important moment in GLBT equality in this country, well beyond one denomination.

TEC still bears an influence out of proportion to its size. MP is right. It mattered to all of us immensely.

Pic: IT and BP meet Bishop Robinson.

Advocate Interview with Bp Gene Robinson (video)

From the Advocate, a wide ranging video interview about politics, religion, TEC, and the Anglican Communion. He is so articulate, thoughtful, and wise.

Quote of the day: Gene Robinson

'It's an amazing thing and I often say it in speeches: you can preach a judgmental and punitive God and no one seems to mind, but if you preach a God who is too merciful, too forgiving, too loving, then there are all kinds of awful consequences.''

from this interview (check it out)

H/T Madpriest

How Religion is Killing Our Most Vulnerable Youth

Huffington Post features +Gene Robinson:

An increasingly popular bumper sticker reads, "Guns Don't Kill People -- RELIGION Kills People!" In light of recent events I would add religion kills young people: gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender young people.

Perhaps not directly, though. And religion is certainly not the only source of anti-gay sentiment in the culture. But it's hard to deny that religious voices denouncing LGBT people contribute to the atmosphere in which violence against LGBT people and bullying of LGBT youth can flourish.
...
Ministers who remain in comfortable silence on sexuality must speak out. Churches that have silently embraced gay and lesbian members for years must publicly hang the welcome banner. How long will we continue to limit and qualify our messages of acceptance, inclusion and embrace for the most vulnerable in order to maintain the comfort of those in our communities of faith who are well served by the status quo? In the current climate, equivocating messages of affirmation are overpowered by the religious rhetoric of hatred. Silence only serves to support the toleration of bullying, violence and exclusion. In the face of what has already become the common occurrence of LGBT teen suicide, how long can we wait to respond?

As good Christians and Jews we must work to change the religious thinking, rhetoric, and practice that communicates to our LGBT children that they are despised by their Creator. We must learn to object to anti-gay jokes the way we learned to tell our friends that we would not tolerate racist jokes. We must demand that our schools not only have antibullying policies, but that they follow through on stopping the practice of bullying. We need to lobby our congressional representatives for the Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA, H.R. 4530, S. 3390). And we must proclaim openly, loudly, and often that we love our children unconditionally in the way that God does -- always wanting the best and most healthy lives for them.

These bullying behaviors would not exist without the undergirding and the patina of respect provided by religious fervor against LGBT people. It's time for "tolerant" religious people to acknowledge the straight line between the official anti-gay theologies of their denominations and the deaths of these young people. Nothing short of changing our theology of human sexuality will save these young and precious lives

+Gene: it gets better

The Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson speaks out in the It Gets Better campaign on youtube:

Listening to Bishop Gene Robinson: (1) the church in the world: preaching or meddling?

I promised to tell you about the lectures that Bishop Gene Robinson presented at his recent visit to St Paul's Cathedral, San Diego. He spoke twice, once on Saturday night, and once on Sunday morning during the weekly "Forum" prior to preaching (I already discussed his sermon). We went to both talks, which I'll tell you about separately.

His first lecture was Saturday night, addressing the role of the church in the public square. Appropriately this was held in the church, where he began by observing "we could stick to religious issues if it weren't for Jesus." He's not a big man, but he's mobile and lively. He has a quick wit, clearly very intelligent and a thinker, but also a man very much "of the people", not hiding behind cautious, elaborate constructions but speaking with a directness and a wry sense of self-deprecating humor. This is not a man who is a calculating politician, but a passionate preacher.

Bp Gene began by considering what he called "isms" and defined as the combination of prejudice with power: racism, sexism, and heterosexism (which he considers a more accurate term than homophobia for those opposed to GLBT equality). He pointed out that there were "isms"--that is, prejudice against people buttressed by majority power--in Christ's time as well: think of the lepers, the Samaritans, and the awful treatment of widows. He said, not for the first time,

"It's not enough to pull drowning people from the river. We have to go upstream to stop them from being thrown in."

It wasn't just GLBT people he identified as in the water, but immigrants, the disabled, the elderly, the ill, and of course, the poor.

So, how do you stop the fall into the water? Bp Gene noted that in a world suspicious of religion and institutions, liberal Christians must show a different way. But he admitted there is lot of bad press to overcome. He distinguished his sort of activism from the religious right, for whom "their way is THE way", and instead recommended that his listeners personalize the argument, and explain how their beliefs lead to their conclusion, rather than forcing their conclusion on everyone. Begin with

"My faith tells me....."

Too often the Christian right's influence is used as an excuse for Christians not to BE Christians in public life, he said.

He also noted the tension between two views of creation: either people are sinners in the hands of a loving God, for whom religion calls them to "liberation, hope, and the best of themselves", or religion is about holding it together to death (what he called "white knuckling it") with new things and discovery being dangerous and frightening. A redemptive view, as opposed to a punitive view. To him, God is at the door asking to be let in, and the "living God" is the message to share.

"The church exists to facilitate a relationship with God", he said. Too much time and effort are spent on property and sex, and it's time to get back into the business of spirituality. The Bible should be a guide, not an idol. "I'm not interested in a God who was 'done' after the Bible was 'complete,'" he said. And during the questions, he added,

"this idea that the Church is a peaceful happy place with no conflict....when was THAT?"

And he finished with the idea that if you aren't in trouble, is it the Gospel you are preaching?

It was a stimulating talk, advocating an involvement in the world but at the same time doing so with humility and respect. And very much driven by inclusion, and bringing all people of all stations and beliefs together in a common humanity. The audience replied with lusty applause.

But there was a measure of pain, too. In the questions, a young man we couldn't see asked in a taut, hurt voice, "What will it take to bring the Catholic church to your view?" (I leaned over to BP and muttered, "about 400 years.") Bp Gene answered gently, pointing out the difference in a church polity that has to have one rule for all cultures, and the Anglican way, where different churches can move at different rates for their cultures. He talked about meeting with gay Roman Catholic priests, and concluded by stating his admiration for people who stay within and fight for inclusion. He was adamant that "inclusion" had to begin with women, drawing explicitly the connection between bias against women and against gays. "But", he cautioned the young man, "If by staying, you find you can no longer believe that you are a precious child of God as you are, being gay, then perhaps you need to find a healthier place for now."

We went to a reception afterwards. A lot of people bought Bp Gene's book and asked him to sign it, and there were many pictures (yes, BP and I got our picture taken with him). The next morning, we went to his next talk, which I'll tell you about shortly.

Sunday Sermons by Traveling Bishops

Given the reading this week, it wasn't surprising that the theme of "who is to be welcomed" reverberated as a starting point, although it went in different directions.

I was privileged to hear a sermon by Bishop Gene Robinson, who was visiting St Paul's Cathedral, San Diego. It's on line, as video or podcast, on the Cathedral's website here. He began with the Gospel story and used it to move on into reflections on "knowing the need for God". Rather than tell you more, I'll just send you to hear the Man Himself. (I'll tell you more later on about the two lectures Bishop Gene gave while at the Cathedral.)

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was also on the road, at Southwark Cathedral in England. The ENS has the text of her sermon, which shall we hope succeeded in speaking truth to power.

Here are some notable excerpts:

It's hard work to get to the point where you're able and willing to see the Lord of love in the odorous street person next to you in the pew. It can be just as hard to find him in the unwelcoming host.

and

The scorn that some are willing to heap on others because we think they've loved excessively or inappropriately is still pretty well known. Yet it is this woman's loving response to Jesus that brings her pardon, and Jesus' celebration of her right relationship with God. ....Fear is the only thing that keeps us from knowing God's love – and we most often discover it in the people around us. ....We can join that family if we're willing to let go of that fearful veneer of righteousness. It covers our yearning to be fully known, because we don't quite think we're lovable. That veneer is the only thing between us and a whole-hearted "welcome home." It's risky to let that veneer be peeled away, but all we risk is love.

and

Those who know the deep acceptance and love that come with healing and forgiveness can lose the defensive veneer that wants to shut out other sinners. They discover that covering their hair or hiding their tears or hoarding their rich perfume isn't the way that the beloved act, even if it makes others nervous. Eventually it may even cure the anxious of their own fear by drawing them toward a seat at that heavenly banquet. There's room for us all at this table, there are tears of welcome and a kiss for the wanderer, and the sweet smell of home.

Want to join the feast? You are welcome here. Love has saved you – go in peace. Lean over and say the same to three strangers: you are welcome here. Love has saved you – be at peace.

I wonder if anyone over there is listening? But full points to Bp Katharine for this one! It appears that she is on a roll...

UpdateHer words are particularly stinging given that she was denied the right to wear her mitre (although other American Bishops, including women, have done so while visiting the UK) and required to once again submit her paperwork proving her stages of ordination (even though she has done so previously). So petty, Archbishop. Was the little frisson of schadenfreude in attempting to insult her really worth mitregate?

A visit from Gene Robinson

I have long felt, as I'm sure have many of you, that the log jam broke with the election of Bishop Gene Robinson in 2003. Not just breaking a logjam of exclusion of GLBT people from the Episcopal Church, but also a reaffirmation, a challenge against the shrill voices of the right wing who claimed to define or to own the concept of "Christian". I think Bishop Gene helped voices of inclusive faith coalesce and reclaim "Christianity" from a narrow political movement on the right. And I think history will see his election as a hugely important moment in GLBT equality in this country, well beyond one denomination.

A modest, unassuming, loving man with a hint of the South in his voice, he was the perfect choice. He symbolized so much to so many far beyond the Episcopal Church. You may not quite appreciate how much this choice meant Outside. Despite its small size, the Episcopal Church continues to have an outsize influence on the Establishment. When you do something, people notice. One of my friends, who is Jewish, even wrote him a letter expressing what he meant to people far outside the faith, with his simple, and joyous, message of love and acceptance (and she got an answer, too!)

I know that Bishop Gene's election stimulated me to explore the Episcopal Church as a possible home for my wife (and me, as a sort of distaff member) and probably marks my real entry into the Episcoblogosphere.

Last summer, we drove up to Anaheim for the Integrity Eucharist. Bishop Gene presided, and I still remember his absolutely impish grin during the service as he walked around that big hotel space, flinging holy water at the joyful congregants. I also remember being able to speak briefly to him as he was coming through the reception area, on his way to vest, and saying inarticulately how much he meant to us as GLBT people. He paused, generously (he was late) and thanked me.

So I am really looking forward to hearing Bishop Gene Robinson speak, during his upcoming visit to St Paul's Cathedral, San Diego on June 12 and 13. On Saturday, June 12 he will speak from 5:30 to 7 pm on The Church in Public Life: Preachin' or Meddlin'? He will also preach at both Sunday services (8 and 10.30) and present the Forum at 9am. If you are in the vicinity and plan to attend, I suggest you get there early. Bishop Gene belongs to more than TEC.

+Gene: finding the strength within

Complete video here

Bp Robinson in Salt Lake City

From the SLC Trib:

There may be one thing even more difficult than coming out of the closet for many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, said the Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop.

And that's coming out as religious.

Yet reclaiming faith is vital to the success of the gay-rights movement, V. Gene Robinson told Utahns this week at a Salt Lake City fundraiser for the nonprofit group Equality Utah.

"We need to lay claim to the fact that we've been able to put our sexuality together with our spirituality in a way that enlivens us and nourishes us," said Robinson, whose landmark 2003 ordination as bishop of the New Hampshire Diocese drew cheers in some quarters and scorn in others throughout the faith community.

"We have let the religious right take the Bible hostage," he said, "and it's time we took it back."
.....
Working from within faith communities is important, Robinson said, because "90 percent, at least, of the oppression that you and I face as LGBT people comes from the Abrahamic faiths -- from Judaism, Islam and Christianity."

Robinson predicted The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- as well as other churches -- will change its position.
"Pretty soon," Robinson said, "even the LDS Church is going to realize that no one under 30 is interested in joining a church that discriminates against us."

Those Mormon families enduring the conflict between what their church teaches and how many of their loved ones live will influence their leaders, he said. "They are going to wake up. They are going to see that the compassion they believe in extends to all of God's children."
....
He encouraged LGBT people to lives of joy, "fabulousness" and integrity so that no one can deny "the eternal light that is in each one of us.

"No matter the setbacks, the costs, the price we pay," Robinson said, "we are inexorably moving to a vision of the culture and of our religious institutions which is closer to God's [vision]."

Interview with Gene Robinson

From the NY Times, an interview with Gene Robinson about the events at Convention. One thing I noticed in particular:

Robinson: Our diocese grew by 3 percent last year.

Q: And that makes how many church members?

Robinson: There are 15,000 people in the diocese of New Hampshire.

Q: Who are you pulling in?

Robinson: We have received so many Roman Catholics and young families, particularly families who are saying, “We don’t want to raise our daughters in a church that doesn’t value young people in our church.”

That would be our experience too: lots of unhappy RC making the swim. So all those dark prognosticators about the decline of the church need to remember that inclusion can be a great draw: inclusion and love are a much better message than exclusion and disdain.

Q: Which vote that you’ve taken here do you think will have more impact, the one on bishops, or the one on same-sex blessings?

Robinson: Blessings. There are a lot of gay and lesbian people out there who are looking for affirmation, who have no desire to be a bishop. I’ve been saying to them, give the Episcopal Church a try, give church another try, and this is the one I wanted to go home with. ..... It was amazing. We took the vote, there were closing prayers, and usually somebody says amen and we’re up and out of there. But last night not a person moved, for 10 minutes. There was absolute silence. I think we realized the momentousness of what we’d done. People just sat their quietly praying. It was amazing. It was almost as if we didn’t want to leave each other.

Chicago Consultation talks about the B033 (video)

The speakers are: The Rev. Dr. Jane Shaw, Dr. Jenny Te Paa, The Rev. Dr. Giles Fraser, Dean Sam Candler, Canon Jim Naughton, The Rev. Dr. Marilyn McCord Adams, Dr. Fredrica Harris Thompsett, Bishop Gene Robinson

(H/T Episcopal Cafe)