Dear Foundry Members and Friends

Dear Foundry Members and Friends,

I was very proud of Foundry Church this past Monday and Tuesday when Foundry members provided a strong presence and witness during the trial of Rev. Frank Schaefer. Foundry leaders also responded quickly to the verdict and the sentence by preparing a strong statement that already has traveled widely around the nation via social media.

You should be aware that the possibility still exists for this verdict to be appealed or for the Board of Ordained Ministry of Frank’s conference to judge what it means to follow the Book of Discipline in its entirety. So options remain.

It was very painful for we who were present to watch a good pastor being tried because of his love for his gay son and for his commitment to minister to all people. I know it was painful for those of you observing the trial through the press and social media as well. In fact, it took me a couple of days to recover from the experience.

As sad as this is, it is also an opportunity. At least three more potential trials are in process. This is an opportunity for all of us who believe in inclusion to speak and act boldly, lovingly, and strategically. A letter writing campaign has begun to ask our United Methodist Bishops to stop the trials. Teams from every Annual Conference are meeting in person with their Bishops to ask them to stop the trials. Strategies to challenge the constitutionality of discriminatory language in the Book of Discipline are being developed. A campaign to have more and more congregations declare themselves reconciling is under way.

The nation and denomination look to Foundry Church to help lead the movement to be the kind of inclusive United Methodist Church that John Wesley began and that God wants us to be. It is important that we remain strong vital and committed. I am asking that each of you renew your commitment to vital participation in the life of our congregation.

A congregation with a growing Sunday school, transcendent and relevant worship, loving fellowship groups and small groups, and many missions serving our community and the world, is a very powerful witness.

I would like to thank those from Foundry who took vacation days to be present at the trial. I would like to thank our leaders who were in constant communication with us during the trial. I would like to thanks those who donated to Pastor Frank Schaefer’s defense fund. And I would like to thank our staff who managed the life of the church so well during my absence.

Please continue to support our LGBTQ Advocacy Team in your prayers, time, and talents as they continue to work for justice, reconciliation, and inclusion within our denomination and the world.

In God’s Love.

Dean Snyder

Senior Pastor

Foundry United Methodist Church

A Statement from Foundry

Foundry is a historic, progressive church in Washington D.C. that welcomes all, worships passionately, challenges the status quo, and seeks to transform the world through God's love. Drawing upon long-established rituals and spiritualities, Foundry is innovative and pioneering in our efforts to be a place of positive change within Christianity, within our denomination, within ourselves and in the world. Our doors swing wide and swing outward as we reach out into the world in which we live. We stand with all other churches and ministers of who are living out their calling to minister to all of God’s children.

We join other United Methodist Churches in our concern over the recent actions in our denomination. The Rev. Frank Schaefer of the Zion United Methodist Church in Lebanon, PA is at risk of losing his ordination as the result of a church trial held on November 18-19, 2013. He was found guilty of not upholding the discipline of the United Methodist Church and of performing a same sex wedding. A jury of ministers suspended him for 30 days for violating the United Methodist Church’s rules. Rev. Schaefer had officiated the wedding of his son, Tim and his partner six years ago in a quiet ceremony held in Massachusetts. He did not do this to make a statement. He did it out of love for his son. Now, Rev. Schaefer must decide during the 30-day suspension if he will embrace all of the United Methodist discipline or surrender his ordination. We stand firmly with Rev. Schaefer and others who are called to minister to the whole church and refuse to do anything less.

This trial was not necessary and the verdict is wrong. Rev. Schaefer is a father who loves his gay son; a son who as a teenager, contemplated suicide in reaction to the United Methodist understanding of homosexuality as articulated in the Book of Discipline. Tim believed he was not worthy of God’s grace and did not want to bring shame on his family or his church. Rev. Schaefer did not passively sacrifice his son to the rules in the one part of the United Methodist Book of Discipline to uphold another. God has already sacrificed his Son, Jesus Christ, to save all of us. As is stated in another part of our Book of Discipline, all people are of sacred worth. Rev. Schaefer is an example we should all be proud to follow. We stand with others across the denomination who are calling for an end to these church trials and an end to unjust discrimination that elevates the United Methodist Book of Discipline above the Bible’s message of love.

We also stand firmly entrenched in our United Methodist history and tradition. Foundry is planning our bicentennial celebration for next fall and we want to celebrate our part of that rich history. We recognize the challenges our denomination faces on the global stage. Our commitment remains to provide leadership to address those challenges so that no one is harmed. A church in Washington D.C. faces very different challenges than a church in Zambia faces very different challenges than a church in Texas or Oklahoma. We are committed to walking with our brothers and sisters everywhere to reach more people, touch more lives, and continue growing to be a catalyst for change and possibility by responding to God's call.

LGBT Christians are and have always been a part of the United Methodist Church. We have marginalized them and caused pain that we are not proud of and are committed to ending. We stand with those LGBT Christians. Foundry is a stronger church and the United Methodist denomination is a stronger denomination because of our LGBT members. We urge all United Methodists – lay people, ministers, and district superintendants, and bishops – to uphold their responsibility to the whole church. We pledge our support and participation in conversations and dialogue with our episcopal leaders as they uphold that responsibility.

For those struggling with this week’s news, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or straight, United Methodist or not, we offer these words of comfort: You are always welcome at Foundry. We love you. And God does too.

Foundry Management Board
LGBTQ Advocacy Team
Pastoral Staff

Postlude

Except for jury selection and during the testimony of a member of the board of Good News who formerly served on the Judicial Council (when I left for a time of personal prayer), I was present for the entire trial of Pastor Frank Schaefer.  I am trying to analyze what happened but, at the moment, all I can find inside is this random collection of mostly disappointed impressions. So I suppose I am sharing these thoughts and feelings more as a form of therapy for myself than as anything that will be very helpful to others.

A disappointment --actually, I admit, a resentment-- is that the prosecutor was repeatedly referred to by the bishop who served as judge and others as "The Church." I understand that his official title is "counsel for the church," and that he was appointed by the resident bishop to "represent the interests of the church." (Para 2701.2.b) But he was referred to  repeatedly as "The Church" as though he were the only one in the room who was church.

The whole trial was about who would be treated as fully included in the church. Then during the trial there is only one person who is actually called "The Church," and his job was to argue that someone who had ministered to his gay son and who refused to say he would not minister to other gay and lesbian folk in the future be removed from the church.

All of us in the room were, of course, the church. But the prosecutor was the only one who was named out loud as "The Church." I understand this this imitates civil courts and is just a technicality, but  I wonder if you can understand why this felt uncomfortable and I struggled with feelings of resentment?

Another disappointment concerns the testimony of Professor Thomas Frank who wrote the text book on United Methodist polity. His testimony was clear and honest and true. "We are a big tent," he said. "What results is a book that is itself quite diverse in its points of view."

He argued that the Book of Discipline is not a set of laws that are consistent and coherent but instead laws that sometimes conflict and are not consistent. He suggested that we make a mistake if we pick a verse out of the Book of Discipline and treat it as absolute. We should honor the complexity of the book and not be Disciplinary fundamentalists (my word, not his).

The disappointing part was that you got the sense that his teaching, which made so much sense, was floating right over the heads of some of those in the room and on the jury. The prosecution's argument was that there is a law, Frank broke it and will not promise not to break it again, so the consequence should be self-evident.

The same thing happened with Janet Wolf's testimony concerning the difference between retributive and restorative justice. "In restorative justice we listen to all of the stories, not just a law that has been broken," she said. In answer to a question from the prosecutor, she added: "Repentance is the repentance of all folk who have contributed to the harm in the community."

Professor Wolf showed how the Book of Discipline supports and advocates restorative justice rather than retributive justice over and over again. Obviously what she said flew right over the heads of the majority of the jury.

In short, I am feeling as if the trial was a victory for simplistic thinking. Wesley, if you read him, was a complex and profound thinker. Methodism has not been a movement based on simplistic thinking. The verdict in this trial was based on simplistic thinking.

Let me paraphrase the simplistic argument that won the day:There is a law on the books. We will not consider its context or other conflicting laws. The only question is whether Frank Schaefer broke this particular law and whether he will or will not promise not to do what he did again. If he will not promise not to break this one law again, he is the guilty one and he must be subjected to the maximum consequences.

I like clarity. I do not like pseudo-clarity. I like simplicity. I do not like simplistic thinking.

According to the lingo of the trial, "The Church" won. Really, it is clear to me that the church lost this trial ... but only for a moment. 

Pastor Schaefer and Steve Heiss who faces a trial in Upper New York serve Communion following sentencing

How Bishop Debra Wallace-Padgett could help

First some context, then a personal story, and finally a suggestion about how I think Bishop Wallace-Padgett could help.

The Context

Bobby Prince and Joe Openshaw
Photo by Kevin Higgs

When Joe Openshaw and Bobby Prince asked Bishop Melvin Talbert to do a religious ceremony in Center Point, AL, celebrating their marriage (legally done earlier in Washington, DC), Bishop Talbert contacted the resident bishop of the North Alabama Conference Bishop Debra Wallace-Padgett.

Bishop Wallace-Padgett asked him not to do the wedding and issued a press release objecting. In her press release she said:

I urged the retired bishop to reconsider as his officiating at this ceremony would be in violation of United Methodist Church law.

.She also expressed concern that such a ceremony would attract public attention and draw it away from the ministries of the North Alabama Conference:

I am also concerned that it would encourage the public to only define The United Methodist Church in North Alabama by one matter and not by the rich range of ministries of North Alabama local churches such as feeding the hungry, ministry with the poor, offering hope for those in addiction, sharing the gospel with our neighbors and welcoming all people to worship together and celebrate the sacrament of holy communion.

Despite her protestations and a similar appeal from the executive committee of the Council of bishops, Bishop Talbot conducted the service on Oct. 26.  

When a majority of the Council of Bishops voted Nov. 15 to request that Bishop Rosemarie Wenner, president of the council, and Bishop Wallace-Padgett file a complaint against Bishop Talbot, they actually asked that two charges be made against him.

One charge is "conducting a ceremony to celebrate the marriage of a same gender couple (Paragraph 2702.1b)." This is the same charge being made against Frank Schaefer, Stephen Heiss and Thomas Ogletree.

The second charge is "undermining the ministry of a colleague (Paragraph 2702.1f)." I would assume this charge is based on Bishop Talbert going ahead with the ceremony despite Bishop Wallace-Padgett's urging him not to. Bishop Talbert is being charged with undermining Bishop Wallace-Padgett's ministry. 

It is this second charge I'd like to discuss.

A Personal Story

When I was appointed to serve my first church after seminary, I got the sense that my appointment was a disappointment to some of the members. My immediate predecessor had retired at the end of his tenure as the church's pastor. All their pastors before that had been experienced and highly respect clergy in the conference. The congregation had been aging and experiencing some numerical decline. They thought the appointment of someone just graduating from seminary was a sign that the appointment cabinet did not consider them as important a congregation as they had once been. They felt slighted. They worried that I didn't know what I was doing.

In fact, they were not wrong to feel they deserved a more experienced pastor than I was. The appointment was made by a superintendent who was a friend of my family and it probably was made as much to accommodate my personal needs at the time as it was to meet their needs.

One day a couple of months after my appointment I was doing my pastoral calls. In those days we did not make advance appointments. We just showed up. I ran the bell of the home of a woman in the congregation named Marie who had cancer and could no longer attend church. I'd come to bring her communion. Her husband George opened the door, stared at me for a moment, and then invited me in.    

Sitting next to Marie's bed was my predecessor.

I conducted myself politely. I chatted. I served communion. I asked my predecessor to say a prayer.

But I was mad.

The rules were very, very clear that former pastors were not to return to provide pastoral care except at my explicit invitation.When I got home I immediately phoned my district superintendent. Fortunately, he was not there.This gave me some time to do some thinking.

I started thinking about Marie. She was dying. I was a novice. Maybe she had reached out to my predecessor because she had needs for support she felt I could not meet. Maybe she was right. Maybe she reached out because she had needs for support that in fact I was too inexperienced and immature to meet.

By the time my district superintendent called me back the next day, I told him to never mind. I told him I had over reacted about something but that it was okay and that I was sorry I bothered him about nothing.

I continued to visit Marie and George. I listened to them, prayed with them, even tried to get a message from them to Oral Roberts when he was speaking in town at a United Methodist Congress on Evangelism.

When Marie went into the hospital for what we knew would be the last time, I was the pastor she wanted at her bedside. I was the one who held her and George's hands as she breathed her last breath.

It took me many years to realize that, as the pastor, I am the most powerful person in the congregation I serve. It often doesn't feel that way, but objectively and practically it is true. In the congregational system that I am part of I have the most power.

As the most powerful person in the system, it does not serve me well to be jealous of my power. It does not serve me well to be defensive about perceived challenges to my power and authority. If I just stay focused on my ministry, listen without becoming reactive, keep a sense of humor, the power automatically drifts back to me. The worst thing I can do is to make my authority the issue.

A Suggestion

My suggestion is that Bishop Wallace-Padgett withdraw the "undermining the ministry of a colleague" charge from the complaint against Bishop Talbert.

Of course, I'd prefer that Bishops Wenner and Wallace-Padgett make no complaint against Bishop Talbert and that the Council of Bishops lead in finding ways other than litigation to work out our differences, as Professor Thomas Frank has suggested.

But, if some bishops are going to file a complaint against Bishop Talbert, I believe it would be better and cleaner to keep the focus on celebrating same-sex marriages rather than to muddy the waters with the "undermining" charge.

A bishop is the most powerful person in his or her area of the United Methodist Church. The 66 active bishops in the United Methodist Church are the 66 most powerful individuals in the United Methodist denominational system. The 46 bishops in the United States are especially powerful.  Active bishops are much more powerful than retired bishops, not to mention Joe Openshaw and Bobby Prince.

Good News magazine is already trying to turn Bishop Wallace-Padgett into a victim and Bishop Talbert into an ogre. In an editorial Rob Renfroe writes:

Bishop Talbert’s lack of respect for his colleague’s ministry is unparalleled and his willingness to harm the ministries of many faithful pastors and congregations is disgraceful.

Bishop Talbert’s lack of respect for his colleague’s ministry is unparalleled and his willingness to harm the ministries of many faithful pastors and congregations is disgraceful. - See more at: http://goodnewsmag.org/2013/10/bishop-debra-wallace-padgett-deserves-better-and-so-do-we/#sthash.cd2ehWZv.dpuf

Bishop Talbert’s lack of respect for his colleague’s ministry is unparalleled and his willingness to harm the ministries of many faithful pastors and congregations is disgraceful. - See more at: http://goodnewsmag.org/2013/10/bishop-debra-wallace-padgett-deserves-better-and-so-do-we/#sthash.cd2ehWZv.dpuf

Anyone who knows the way the church really works knows this is hysterical exaggeration. There is another agenda here other than protecting the authority and power of a bishop over her area.

I assume, but do not know for sure, that Bishop Wallace-Padgett has reached out in a caring way to Joe Openshaw and Bobby Prince. I hope she has offered to meet with them to listen to them and to pray with them. I hope that she has offered to meet with those angry about a celebration of a same sex marriage having happened in their conference to listen to them and pray with them.

Listening, caring, thinking clearly, and leading in a non-defensive way seems to me to be the key here. A focus on protecting one's power does not move things forward.

If we are going to litigate against pastors who celebrate same-sex marriages, let's keep to that question. It will be hard enough to deal with this without piling on.

Bishop Talbert’s lack of respect for his colleague’s ministry is unparalleled and his willingness to harm the ministries of many faithful pastors and congregations is disgraceful. - See more at: http://goodnewsmag.org/2013/10/bishop-debra-wallace-padgett-deserves-better-and-so-do-we/#sthash.cd2ehWZv.dpuf

How Bishop Debra Wallace-Padgett could help

First some context, then a personal story, and finally a suggestion about how I think Bishop Wallace-Padgett could help.

The Context

Bobby Prince and Joe Openshaw
Photo by Kevin Higgs

When Joe Openshaw and Bobby Prince asked Bishop Melvin Talbert to do a religious ceremony in Center Point, AL, celebrating their marriage (legally done earlier in Washington, DC), Bishop Talbert contacted the resident bishop of the North Alabama Conference Bishop Debra Wallace-Padgett.

Bishop Wallace-Padgett asked him not to do the wedding and issued a press release objecting. In her press release she said:

I urged the retired bishop to reconsider as his officiating at this ceremony would be in violation of United Methodist Church law.

.She also expressed concern that such a ceremony would attract public attention and draw it away from the ministries of the North Alabama Conference:

I am also concerned that it would encourage the public to only define The United Methodist Church in North Alabama by one matter and not by the rich range of ministries of North Alabama local churches such as feeding the hungry, ministry with the poor, offering hope for those in addiction, sharing the gospel with our neighbors and welcoming all people to worship together and celebrate the sacrament of holy communion.

Despite her protestations and a similar appeal from the executive committee of the Council of bishops, Bishop Talbot conducted the service on Oct. 26.  

When a majority of the Council of Bishops voted Nov. 15 to request that Bishop Rosemarie Wenner, president of the council, and Bishop Wallace-Padgett file a complaint against Bishop Talbot, they actually asked that two charges be made against him.

One charge is "conducting a ceremony to celebrate the marriage of a same gender couple (Paragraph 2702.1b)." This is the same charge being made against Frank Schaefer, Stephen Heiss and Thomas Ogletree.

The second charge is "undermining the ministry of a colleague (Paragraph 2702.1f)." I would assume this charge is based on Bishop Talbert going ahead with the ceremony despite Bishop Wallace-Padgett's urging him not to. Bishop Talbert is being charged with undermining Bishop Wallace-Padgett's ministry. 

It is this second charge I'd like to discuss.

A Personal Story

When I was appointed to serve my first church after seminary, I got the sense that my appointment was a disappointment to some of the members. My immediate predecessor had retired at the end of his tenure as the church's pastor. All their pastors before that had been experienced and highly respect clergy in the conference. The congregation had been aging and experiencing some numerical decline. They thought the appointment of someone just graduating from seminary was a sign that the appointment cabinet did not consider them as important a congregation as they had once been. They felt slighted. They worried that I didn't know what I was doing.

In fact, they were not wrong to feel they deserved a more experienced pastor than I was. The appointment was made by a superintendent who was a friend of my family and it probably was made as much to accommodate my personal needs at the time as it was to meet their needs.

One day a couple of months after my appointment I was doing my pastoral calls. In those days we did not make advance appointments. We just showed up. I ran the bell of the home of a woman in the congregation named Marie who had cancer and could no longer attend church. I'd come to bring her communion. Her husband George opened the door, stared at me for a moment, and then invited me in.    

Sitting next to Marie's bed was my predecessor.

I conducted myself politely. I chatted. I served communion. I asked my predecessor to say a prayer.

But I was mad.

The rules were very, very clear that former pastors were not to return to provide pastoral care except at my explicit invitation.When I got home I immediately phoned my district superintendent. Fortunately, he was not there.This gave me some time to do some thinking.

I started thinking about Marie. She was dying. I was a novice. Maybe she had reached out to my predecessor because she had needs for support she felt I could not meet. Maybe she was right. Maybe she reached out because she had needs for support that in fact I was too inexperienced and immature to meet.

By the time my district superintendent called me back the next day, I told him to never mind. I told him I had over reacted about something but that it was okay and that I was sorry I bothered him about nothing.

I continued to visit Marie and George. I listened to them, prayed with them, even tried to get a message from them to Oral Roberts when he was speaking in town at a United Methodist Congress on Evangelism.

When Marie went into the hospital for what we knew would be the last time, I was the pastor she wanted at her bedside. I was the one who held her and George's hands as she breathed her last breath.

It took me many years to realize that, as the pastor, I am the most powerful person in the congregation I serve. It often doesn't feel that way, but objectively and practically it is true. In the congregational system that I am part of I have the most power.

As the most powerful person in the system, it does not serve me well to be jealous of my power. It does not serve me well to be defensive about perceived challenges to my power and authority. If I just stay focused on my ministry, listen without becoming reactive, keep a sense of humor, the power automatically drifts back to me. The worst thing I can do is to make my authority the issue.

A Suggestion

My suggestion is that Bishop Wallace-Padgett withdraw the "undermining the ministry of a colleague" charge from the complaint against Bishop Talbert.

Of course, I'd prefer that Bishops Wenner and Wallace-Padgett make no complaint against Bishop Talbert and that the Council of Bishops lead in finding ways other than litigation to work out our differences, as Professor Thomas Frank has suggested.

But, if some bishops are going to file a complaint against Bishop Talbert, I believe it would be better and cleaner to keep the focus on celebrating same-sex marriages rather than to muddy the waters with the "undermining" charge.

A bishop is the most powerful person in his or her area of the United Methodist Church. The 66 active bishops in the United Methodist Church are the 66 most powerful individuals in the United Methodist denominational system. The 46 bishops in the United States are especially powerful.  Active bishops are much more powerful than retired bishops, not to mention Joe Openshaw and Bobby Prince.

Good News magazine is already trying to turn Bishop Wallace-Padgett into a victim and Bishop Talbert into an ogre. In an editorial Rob Renfroe writes:

Bishop Talbert’s lack of respect for his colleague’s ministry is unparalleled and his willingness to harm the ministries of many faithful pastors and congregations is disgraceful.

Bishop Talbert’s lack of respect for his colleague’s ministry is unparalleled and his willingness to harm the ministries of many faithful pastors and congregations is disgraceful. - See more at: http://goodnewsmag.org/2013/10/bishop-debra-wallace-padgett-deserves-better-and-so-do-we/#sthash.cd2ehWZv.dpuf

Bishop Talbert’s lack of respect for his colleague’s ministry is unparalleled and his willingness to harm the ministries of many faithful pastors and congregations is disgraceful. - See more at: http://goodnewsmag.org/2013/10/bishop-debra-wallace-padgett-deserves-better-and-so-do-we/#sthash.cd2ehWZv.dpuf

Anyone who knows the way the church really works knows this is hysterical exaggeration. There is another agenda here other than protecting the authority and power of a bishop over her area.

I assume, but do not know for sure, that Bishop Wallace-Padgett has reached out in a caring way to Joe Openshaw and Bobby Prince. I hope she has offered to meet with them to listen to them and to pray with them. I hope that she has offered to meet with those angry about a celebration of a same sex marriage having happened in their conference to listen to them and pray with them.

Listening, caring, thinking clearly, and leading in a non-defensive way seems to me to be the key here. A focus on protecting one's power does not move things forward.

If we are going to litigate against pastors who celebrate same-sex marriages, let's keep to that question. It will be hard enough to deal with this without piling on.

Bishop Talbert’s lack of respect for his colleague’s ministry is unparalleled and his willingness to harm the ministries of many faithful pastors and congregations is disgraceful. - See more at: http://goodnewsmag.org/2013/10/bishop-debra-wallace-padgett-deserves-better-and-so-do-we/#sthash.cd2ehWZv.dpuf

The sensitive matter of comparing racial and LGBT civil rights

I've been expressing myself on Facebook rather than this blog for the past months because, frankly, Facebook is less time consuming and less intellectually rigorous. Comments made on Facebook, however, also tend to be much less thoughtful and more susceptible to misunderstanding.

I had a terse exchange on Facebook this week with my friend the Rev. Robert Barnes.

We were having a discussion about Professor Tom Frank's open letter to the Council of Bishops asking the bishops to stop holding trials of pastors performing same sex weddings.

Someone made a comment about the United Methodist Church's history of racial segregation during the time of the Central Jurisdiction. Bob responded with this argument:

  Regarding the segregation issue, the United Methodist Church corrected that of it's own accord, because the correction was inherent in our theology and faith. The battle against racism was and is a long fight in which United Methodists have been mostly ahead of the curve.

I responded to Bob this way:

Actually, the Central Jurisdiction was created in 1939 and ended in 1968. To see how American Methodism was not pioneering in integration read Peter Murray "Methodists and the Crucible of Race." As Al Clipp was reminding me today, the Central Jurisdiction may have lasted longer, but the EUBs refused to merge so long as the Methodist Church was structurally segregated. However, it is encouraging to think that maybe 50 years from now someone may be under the impression that the UMC may have been mostly ahead of the curve on LGBTQ justice!

I forgot to include a smiley face. :>)

The discussion ended up with Bob asking me this question:

Dean, forgive me if I was wrong. So just let me ask you; Do you agree that
a) those who oppose gay marriage and the ordination of homosexuals are not racist (anymore than anyone else) nor are their arguments and...
b) that arguing that our stance on homosexuality must ultimately change for the same reasons that our stance on segregation ended is a spurious claim - because a) is false.
I am not hostile towards you and respect you where we differ; but I strenuously oppose some of the arguments that are raised against the character of conservatives.

 So I want to face these questions and try to respond squarely.

I do not think white people who oppose gay marriage or ordination are any more or less racist as a group than white people who support it. (I will not try to speak for people of other races.) But I also think we should be able to discuss U.S. Methodism's history of racism during the Central Jurisdiction era without those who oppose gay marriage and ordination feeling as though we are calling them racists. 

For me, the most important precedents for the discussion of LGBTQ inclusion are the changes Methodism made concerning the role and status of women and divorced people within the denomination. I often ask my friends who oppose change on biblical grounds how they have been able to contextualize what the Bible teaches about women and divorce but are not able to do the same thing concerning same-sex affection. No one has given me an answer that I am able to grasp yet.

The precedent of race is more complicated. Clearly I would not argue that people who oppose LGBTQ marriage and ordination are racists. Neither would I venture to suggest which side of the struggle they would have been on if they had lived from 1939 to 1968 when race was the issue for Methodism. I do not know what side I would have been on. I understand these are not the same struggle.

But I think there is a lot to learn from the Central Jurisdiction struggle that we can apply to the current LGBTQ- inclusion struggle.

We were fortunate that W Astor Kirk was a member here at Foundry until his death in 2011. At the 1964 Genberal Conference, Bill proposed an amendment to end the Central Jurisdiction to the merger plan for the Methodist and Evangelical United Brethren churches. It passed. The motion that ended the Central Jurisdiction became known as the "Kirk Amendment."

Opponents of ending the Central Jurisdiction petitioned the Judicial Council to argue that the Kirk Amendment was only advisory, not mandatory. Bill took a six month leave of absence from work to prepare the argument supporting the end of the Central Jurisdiction. His argument won the 1965 Judicial Decision No. 232 which supported the dismantling of the Central Jurisdiction.

During the last years of his life Bill worked ardently to apply what he had learned in the struggle to end institutional racial segregation in the Methodist Church to the struggle to end institutional discrimination against gay and lesbian people in the United Methodist Church. He was working on a resolution to General Conference the last time I visited him in the hospital the day before his death.

It is fair to study the Central Jurisdiction struggle to gain some perspective on the LGBTQ-inclusion struggle. While they are different struggles there are similarities.

Do I think that those who oppose gay marriage and ordination are racist? No. Do I think opposition to gay marriage and ordination are part of a tradition and heritage of religious homophobia and heterosexism? Well, to be honest, yes. It is a heritage and tradition all of us who are straight have to wrestle with inside ourselves.

So to my friend Bob: a) I do not think opposing gay marriage and ordination makes anyone a racist more than those who favor it. But b) I also do not think that not being more a racist means that those persons are necessarily free from the tradition of religious homophobia and heterosexism which I believe to be hateful, destructive, and anti-Christ.

Not being more or less racist than the rest of us does not give anyone a free pass on the matter of discrimination against people of different sexual identities.

And, finally, I will add this. I do think that discrimination in whatever form it takes tends to share some common dynamics and, as Bill Kirk taught me so often, we certainly can learn lessons from one struggle that we can apply to another.

I think that, because the current struggle is shaping up in such a way as to seem to pit LGBTQ inclusion against the empowerment of African United Methodists, we are in danger of living out our various traditions of prejudice and discrimination in all sorts of harmful ways.

I think we have to be very self-reflective and prayerful because we who are white, straight, affluent, first-world, and male (or any combination of these)  have within us an assumption of self-superiority and privilege in regard to many other groups. This will not be easy work and none of us get a free pass.