Don, I have been very careful from the beginning of my writing on this site and in the book NOT to attack conservatives, or ECOTS as they are coming to be known in some circles. I have a high level of respect and regard for everyone to define and defend their theological viewpoints. I am very interested in engaging in dialogue involving those who share mutual respect but divergent theologies. I received a grant in my last church to conduct such public dialogues between conservative and liberal theologians who could model for the church how to do that without devolving into name calling, stereotyping, disrespect, and ad hominem attacks. By the way, in the very first such dialogue that took place between Steve Patterson of Eden Theological Seminary (the liberal voice in the dialogue), and Scott Langston (from Southwest Baptist University, and the conservative) - Scott revealed to Steve and me as we sat in my office going over the evening's format that his Board of Directors threatened to terminate him if he even showed up for the dialogue.

Now, it is about that final piece that I am writing. To name what has become not an uncommon experience for me - the manner in which and the tactics used by many on the right who are engaging less in dialogue than in guerrilla tactics meant to destroy both our churches and any hope for reconciliation between them - is what I am about.

And it is certainly a bit disingenuous to name the kind of disruptions that are occuring in our denomination on a group of leaders that are either so far beyond the people theologically or so out of touch with them that they will do anything no matter how the people feel about it. My research has uncovered, and I have written about (and will continue to do so) an Executive Summary of the IRD that four years prior to the 2005 Synod  asked for $3.6 million "for influencing the governing church conventions over the next four years;" and that further states in one section "our program will focus on issues ranging from marriage and sexuality," and in another goes on to report "Beginning in 2001, we will emphasize training conservatives and moderates for the debates on marriage and sexuality."

Leaders in the denomination did not choose this battle. They did not get up one day and say "We have stirred anything up over homosexuality issues in a while - why not in 2005 in Atlanta." Even the GLBT community did not agree that this was the appropriate time for such a discussion. The buttons were being pushed by the IRD - in full cooperation with partnership from the BWF and, yes, even for a time the Faithful and Welcoming group. States were amending their constitutions to REMOVE rights from its citizens in the GLBT community. Lines were being drawn in the sand. And why did the IRD choose this topic? Because it believes in the sanctity of marriage? Possibly. But much more likely because they are aware of the passion this issue generates and the potential it has to split the church. And damn if they weren't right about that.

John Thomas and the leadership of the UCC did not choose this battle, but thank God - even knowing what would come - that they and we (that is the rank and file of the UCC) are not now and not ever afraid of engaging the powers that be in the active and courageous defense of all that we stand for and believe.

So yes, I think the IRD is behind this. Even if no one in those churches you mention knew nothing about, know nothing about ,the IRD, what happened to us collectively following Syond 25 in Atlanta, and what continues to happen in those churches is a by-product of their orchestrated actions, their 'invitation-only' training events, and the deployment of their 'trained activists.'

And I continue to bristle at, and be offended by, the implication - if not direct accusation - that I am a catalyst for for divisiveness in this denomination that I love, and in this church to which I have not only dedicated my life in service, but also whose unity I cherish more than anything.  
Shalom, Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer "Time makes ancient good uncouth; we must onward still and upward who would keep abreast of truth." from Lowell, "The Present Crisis"
by John Dorhauer on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 10:42:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

1. In my reading of the EMR, it did ask the churches to consider, to dialogue about this issue.  I have no doubt that the amendment wants the churches to come to a particular point of view, just as I suspect past resolutions on the civil rights legislation wanted churches to come to a particular point of view, knowing full well that churches had every right to continue their support of apartheid in South Africa, or segragation, or whatever, for e.g.  In the end, this issue is about Equal Marriage Rights, civil rights for people in same sex relationships--you can disagree with it, but the idea that your disagreement with my homosexuality or who I fall in love with should negate my rights is immoral.  Again, my Mississippi grandmother would have sworn up and down that black people were not morally, spiritually, or in any way equals with her or other white people--in the end, she was forced to deal with the issue because someone put the issue before her, beyond her local community.  (Not to disparage my grandmother, who was a product of her time, and was also a wonderful woman, despite her flaws).  In the end, she never changed her mind about black people, but that wasn't point--she wasn't be asked to change her mind about the equivalency of blacks to whites; rather, she was being told that she couldn't only hire white people, or pay them less for the same work (she actually owned a shop, something unheard of in her generation), or deny them the right to vote by putting up unfair obstacles.  Would it have been fairer to her to simply ask her to have a dialogue about the issue of race, rather than invite her to do the right thing and not be a bigot?  Or should we have remained neutral on whether or not her racism was immoral.  Again, the Southern Presbyterian church could have saved itself alot of members by not calling racism immoral.  Don, would it have been better for them to be quiet about it, or simply ask people to be in dialogue about whether or not black people were actually equal to white people?  And I don't agree with you--even if it was an invitation to dialogue with about the issue, it would have made the press--perhaps not in the same big way.  Same sex marriage was the hottest ticket of the day--anything would have made the press.  

2. In your opinion, what is the purpose of our national gathering, aside from the party part? And don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good party, but is there anything beyond good speeches, powerful worship, fellowship, etc, that we should be doing?  

3. Don, are you standing up in your pulpit and inviting people to consider the rights of GLBT couples?  I can honestly say that I have paid my dues, both in tending to the battered GLBT people I have pastored, and sacrificing financially--the cost of being open about my sexual orientation has cost me a huge student loan bill, far beyond my colleagues, and even my closeted colleagues who took their denomination's money knowing that same denomination was making assumptions about their orientation that wasn't true.  And being open has cost me alot in terms of large pulpits who won't take a chance on me, despite a strong record of building congregations, spirtually and numerically (and maybe helping me pay off those $^%$^(&% loans before I pass away!).  I also need to spend 2-4K in legal expenses to make sure that my partner's parents won't swoop down on our assets if he should die (thankfully, my parents wouldn't do that--but you never know when it comes to money, not that I have that much, or anything, really, except of expensive degree and a reason to wake up in the morning, the most valuable thing I have). How about you, Don?  What has it cost you, this whole EMR thing, or standing up for GLBT folks in your pulpit?  I suspect it has cost you something, because I don't think you are personally against EMR.  

4. I am quite aware that EMR didn't make all congregations ONA--pretty much nothing can make our local congregations do anything they don't want to do, including leave with their property (and I thank God for that--I love our polity, even when it makes it easy for folks to leave us).  But something like 90 more congregations became ONA since GS 25 and I think that invititation to think about EMR did push them to clarify who was actually welcomed at their table.  Now, I am quite aware that it pushed many others away, but that also clarified for them that people like me and my partner weren't welcomed...and even that is a gift, in a way, for them: they know their target market doesn't include me.  Some good things have come out of this, though I know some sad things have come about as well--shadow and light, it seems, with everything.  

5. I think I addressed your idea of putting together "unbias" resolutions in point one above--again, I don't want to be NACCC.  I get it, though I just wonder if that would have kept any more folks in--maybe a few more, but even bringing up the topic seems to outrage people.  I suspect our culture's anxiety about my marriage has more to do with people not tending to their own marriages--can anyone find a non-Mormon Republican Presidential candidate still with his first wife?!  Better to bash my marriage then to tend to their own!    

As a member of my association's Church and Ministry committe, just know this: I will never vote to not grant or remove the credentials of someone I disagree with on this issue, but if its clear that candidate is hoping to bar me and others like me from ordination if they could, or from full participation in the life of the church (like holding a gay marriage in my own church's sanctuary), I will vote against them.  As I've said in a previous email, I have good UCC friends who said that they loved me (and I think they really do) but said that I shouldn't be allowed to serve in the UCC because of my sexual orientation, and they would like to change that.  I'm going to fight them tooth and nail, and love them while doing it, because they are worth correcting, but also because I know I don't have anywhere else to go.  But they do--Evangelical Assocation, NACCC, CCCC, etc, and a host of others (Evangelical Covenant, etc) would welcome with opening arms.

You can't uphold Christ and ignore injustice, right?  And if the cost of unity is standing by and not doing something, is unity worth it?  And, of course, it isn't for me.  I already for many years in my previous denomination, sitting down and shutting up so we could all sit together...too many voices, women, blacks GLBT, have been left behind for the sake of unity.  I have no doubt God loves the leavers and the left behind equally--I have not given up on them, nor has God, and thankfully, God has given up on me yet as well.

Dogone, Don, you make this prophetic freaking hard!  

Kev

by PastorKev on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 02:07:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]