California United Methodists support marriage

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends

Here's an article from the United Methodist News Service on how United Methodists in California are challenging church law by calling for pastoral and church support of lesbians and gays who marry in California:

http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2433457&ct=5661893

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,
Rev. Gil Caldwell was part of our Soulforce United Methodist Team at the recent General Conference of the United Methodist Church. He writes this letter in support of the California Pacific Conference and its Bishop.
Steven Webster

An Open Letter: The Lord is using the California Pacific Conference to preserve our church

To: Bishop Mary Ann Swenson, The California Pacific Conference and The Western Jurisdiction

One of our United Methodist brothers, after delegates from Africa at the recent General Conference helped to preserve our "Incompatible with Christian teaching" Book of Discipline language concerning homosexuality/homosexuals said this; "The Lord is using the Africans to preserve our church." The recent actions by the California-Pacific Conference in their 2008 Annual Conference session have done more to preserve the history and heritage of Methodism than our 30 plus year history of discriminating against same gender loving persons has. The actions of the Conference in response to the now-legal same gender marriages in California will be noted by historians as an important turning point in the life of our denomination.

A background comment that illustrates our United Methodist understanding of the the ministry of the church and of clergy. Many United Methodists are in radical disagreement with our current war in Iraq. Our Council of Bishops and other sectors of the denomination have said so. Yet, no United Methodist clergyperson or church is expected to withhold ministry from those who got us into the war, those who lead the war, those who fight the war, those who are veterans of the war and certainly not the families of those who lost loved ones in the war, nor those who have been injured in the war. If our ministry is not withheld from those associated with a war about which we disagree, why would we be expected to withhold ministry from same gender couples who are preparing for marriage and desire United Methodist clergy to offer ministry before, during and after their marriage ceremonies in California (and Massachusetts)?

Many of us pray and hope that the Western Jurisdictional Conference, in its discernment in response to the leading of God, will affirm the actions of the California Pacific Conference and other Conferences as they have sought to preserve the inclusivity and integrity of ministry in the United Methodist Church.

The passion that I express in this letter and in some of my other writings is shaped by my 74 years of living and engagement with race, as it has shaped both the church and society. We have wasted so many, many years debating, dividing and coming together in response to race. My length of life has given me reason to be in despair that on matters related to same gender loving persons, we are again as a denomination wasting God's good time; this time by separating and segregating persons because of their sexual orientation. As different as matters of race and sexual orientation are, to allow either of them to distort our ministry by denying ministry to some because of legislation and Book of Discipline language, is a distortion of Scripture, Experience, Tradition and Reason. We learned this in the long nightmare of race-based slavery, segregation and discrimination; all at one time supported by Methodist legislation. The California-Pacific Conference actions enable us to end the long nightmare of withholding ministry from same gender couples.

George Santayana, philosopher, essayist, poet and novelist is identified with these words that have been preserved in paraphrase fashion by many of us: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I remember the past through the stories my paternal grandfather told me about slavery. I remember the past because I was born into and lived much of my life in racial segregation. I remember the past as I have read in Methodist history, the discussions and debates that divided the church because of slavery. I was 5 years old when my preacher-father came home to tell us that in Kansas City in 1939, three branches of Methodism held a "Unification Conference" to end the long debate and division over slavery by establishing the racially segregated Central Jurisdiction.

The white Methodist preacher/Bishop for whom I am named, Gilbert Haven, in the midst of the vile and vicious debate in the church about the humanity of blacks in the 19th century, dared to become an outspoken proponent of interracial marriage. Some Methodist Annual Conferences dared to speak out about racial equality and integration, even as General Conference legislation at that time, declared the opposite. Always there have been Methodist clergy and laypersons who have been on the side of God's inclusive intent, while their sisters and brothers allowed their prejudices to shape a God of exclusive and biased intent. History has proven that the former were right, and the latter were wrong!

The California-Pacific Conference and other Conferences, through their actions have remembered the past of racial slavery and segregation. They love the denomination so much that they do not want it on matters of sexual orientation and same gender loving couples to repeat the separation and segregation of the past. State governments in their judicial, executive and legislative branches are ahead of the United Methodist Church in their understandings and actions regarding the constitutional meaning of equality and equal access. May we as United Methodists at least have the courage to be in ministry to those whom the state has now granted the right to marry.

As Martin Luther King suggested, "The Church has been a taillight rather than a headlight" in it slowness to lead on matters of racial justice. Legislation enacted by Annual Conferences to affirm same gender commitments and support of those actions by the coming Jurisdictional Conferences will begin to make our Book of Discipline "Called to Inclusiveness" words a reality, rather than a public relations slogan.

Gil Caldwell
July 3, 2008
"May God Bless the United Methodist Church"

[Matt Algren]

Weird. I spent some time yesterday afternoon doing some research for a series of blog posts on United Methodist Annual Conferences' reactions to Fort Worth. In addition to this from California-Pacific (So. Cal. and Hawaii) and California-Nevada conferences, the Rocky Mountain Conference (Colorado, Utah, most of Wyoming) affirmed the GC Majority Report that would have removed the compatibility language from the Book of Discipline.

Also, my own West Ohio Conference passed a resolution ". . . [asking] West Ohio pastors, congregations, staff and members to refrain from judgment regarding homosexual persons and practices and study with open hearts and open minds materials available through Cokesbury on heterosexism and homophobia."

Not quite as definitive as the western states, but it's a step. Note that none of the conferences can outright go against the General Conference actions.

[labguy22]

Here's an update :http://365gay.com/Newscon08/07/071708memar.htm

Memorable Quote "I love my church, and I don't want to leave it. But I can't be part of a church that is willing to portray a God that is so hateful. I would rather be forced out" the Rev. Janet Gollery McKeithen

[BruceChris]

So homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, but clearly it is not incompatible with the teachings of Christ?

So just how long will it be until someone points out to the traditionalists that it is they who have the position which is indefensible, at least on the face of it?

Namaste', Bruce Chris

[Matt Algren]

So homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, but clearly it is not incompatible with the teachings of Christ?

So just how long will it be until someone points out to the traditionalists that it is they who have the position which is indefensible, at least on the face of it?

Namaste', Bruce Chris
The argument's been made. There's no getting around basic bigotry, though.

By the way, news came over the wire today that the Western Jurisdiction (which includes California) had an openly gay pastor nominated from the floor for the episcopacy. His goal was to force the Judicial Council to make a decision and bear the brunt of the controversy. He was pretty high up on the voting for awhile, but withdrew when it became obvious that it wasn't going to happen.