Open Hands Vol 11 No 4 - Church Conflict: Living with It! Learning From it!

Open Hands Vol 11 No 4 - Church Conflict: Living with It! Learning From it!

11

4

1996

Spring

Vol. 11 No. 4
Spring 1996
2 Open Hands
Open Hands is a resource for congregations
and individuals seeking to be in
ministry with lesbian, bisexual, and gay
persons. Each issue focuses on a specific
area of concern within the church.
Open Hands is published quarterly by
the Reconciling Congregation Program,
Inc. (United Methodist) in cooperation
with the Association of Welcoming &
Affirming Baptists (American) the More
Light Churches Network (Presbyterian),
the Open and Affirming (United Church
of Christ), and the Reconciled in Christ
(Lutheran) programs. Each of these programs
is a national network of local
churches that publicly affirm their ministry
with the whole family of God and
welcome lesbian and gay persons and
their families into their community of
faith. These five programs— along with
Open and Affirming (Disciples of
Christ), Supportive Congregations
(Brethren/Mennonite), and Welcoming
(Unitarian Universalist)— offer hope
that the church can be a reconciled community.
Open Hands is published quarterly.
Subscription is $20 for four issues ($25
outside the U.S.). Single copies and back
issues are $6. Quantities of 10 or more,
$4 each.
Subscriptions, letters to the editor,
manuscripts, requests for advertising
rates, and other correspondence should
be sent to:
Open Hands
3801 N. Keeler Avenue
Chicago, IL 60641
Phone: 312 / 736-5526
Fax: 312 / 736-5475
Member, The Associated Church Press
© 1996
Reconciling Congregation Program, Inc.
Open Hands is a registered trademark.
ISSN 0888-8833
w Printed on recycled paper.
Vol. 11 No. 4 Spring 1996
Resources for Ministries Affirming
the Diversity of Human Sexuality
NAMING THE CONFLICT
Caught In Between! 5
ALLEN V. HARRIS
Do you feel caught on orientation issues?
A Letter from Corinth—and a Response 6
JOHN ALDRIDGE AND ELDERS, CORINTH
Homosexual behavior named rebellion against God.
JOHN A. EKMAN, SARATOGA SPRINGS
A pastor of ONA/ML church invites further dialogue.
At Issue for Us 8
GEORGE WILLIAMSON, JR.
Pastor of disfellowshipped Baptist church speaks out.
Shall Unmarried Couples Be Introduced Together? 9
TIM EUDY
Church adopts compromise solution.
LIVING WITH CONFLICT
Living with our Dif ferences 10
BRENDA J. MOULTON AND HOWARD MILLER
Lesbian pastor and deacon live with unresolved issues.
Faithful to our Past and Future 12
J. BENNETT GUESS
Kentucky church stays rooted, looks ahead.
Conflicts of Conscience 14
MARTHA JUILLERAT
Former pastor reflects on Presbyterian conflicts.
Modeling Skills for Living with Conflict 15
IGNACIO CASTUERA
Gutierrez, 23rd Psalm, and a hymn provide clues.
We Need Each Other (poem) ALICE G. KNOTTS 15
Living with Institutional Conflicts 16
ROBERT W. MATTHEIS AND SIERRA PACIFIC SYNOD COUNCIL
Bishop tries creative solutions; council takes actions.
CHURCH CONFLICT:
Living with It! Learning from It!
Spring 1996 3
Publisher
Mark Bowman
Editor
Mary Jo Osterman
Layout / Graphics / Typesetting
In Print – Jan Graves
Program Coordinators
Mark Bowman
Reconciling Congregation
Program, Inc. (UMC)
3801 N. Keeler Avenue
Chicago, IL 60641
312/736-5526
Ann B. Day
Open and Affirming
Program (UCC)
P.O. Box 403
Holden, MA 01520
508/856-9316
Bob Gibeling
Reconciled in Christ
Program (ELCA)
2466 Sharondale Drive
Atlanta, GA 30305
404/266-2730
Dick Lundy
More Light Churches
Network (PCUSA)
5525 Timber Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331
612/470-0093
Brenda J. Moulton
Welcoming & Affirming
Baptists (ABC/USA))
P.O. Box 2596
Attleboro Falls, MA 02763
508/226-1945
Editorial Advisory Committee
Howard Bess, W&A
Ann Marie Coleman, ONA
Dan Hooper, RIC
Derrick Kikuchi, MLCN
Tammy Lindahl, MLCN
Samuel E. Loliger, ONA
Tim Phillips, W&A
Dick Poole, RIC
Caroline Presnell, RCP
Irma C. Romero, ONA
Paul Santillán, RCP
Martha Scott, RCP
Joanne Sizoo, MLCN
Stuart Wright, RIC
Next issue:
Airing Out Closets
ONE MORE SELECTED MOVEMENT WELCOMING
WORD RESOURCES NEWS CHURCHES LIST
24 28 29 29
Conflicts of Autonomy 18
BRENDA J. MOULTON
Two Baptist groups disfellowship W&A churches.
Saving Face/Saving Relationship 19
VIRSTAN B.Y. CHOY
Asian conflict management style offers model for us.
LEARNING FROM CONFLICT
Living Relationships: Living in Christ 20
JOHN LINSCHEID
“What would Jesus do?”— the right question?
Engaging in Civil Discourse 22
DONALD E. BOSSART
Denver experiment provides a model.
Three Keys to Solving Conflict 24
HERBERT W. CHILSTROM
Retired bishop identifies keys and miracles.
Sowing Trust at the Borders: A Response to Subversion 26
ALICE G. KNOTTS
Practice caution before embracing ethic of subversion.
SUSTAINING THE SPIRIT
Prayers
Slow us down, Sacred Spirit GEORGEANNE WILCOXSON 4
Holy Word ROB CUMMINGS 4
Creative Conversationalist LAURENE LAFONTAINE 7
Passionate God SCOTT ANDERSON 9
Sacred Potter LAURIE KRAUS 13
God of all time and space ROBERT W. MATTHEIS 17
Eternal God JOHN TROMPEN 19
Holy Word RICHARD KOTERAS 25
Liturgy
Living in the Tensions DAVID D. OTTO 27
Prayers from More Light Prayers are used with grateful appreciation
to the writers, Chris Glaser (editor), and More Light Update
newsletter, PLGC, P.O. Box 38, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0038.
4 Open Hands
Spring 1996 5
Caught between a rock and a hard
place. Is that how it feels to you?
That’s how it feels for many congregations.
On one side is the “rock” of
the church with its hardened positions
on human sexuality and intolerance toward
lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.
On the other is the “hard place” of extra-
church organizations demanding
immediate transformation of church
polity and ingrained beliefs about human
sexuality. When there seems simply
to be no way to please either camp,
some churches ignore the situation entirely.
Several forces at work within a
congregation encourage this disregard.
Daunting Forces for
Inaction
Exterior forces confronting local congregations
who might advocate on
behalf of lesbians and gay men are
daunting. The debate, for many reasons,
advances extremely explicit and antithetical
choices. Congregations surmise
that either they must be completely inclusive,
not only of lesbians and gay
men, but also of the entire variety of
human sexual identity, as well as affirming
each of their concerns—or they must
be totally silent on the topic. Rather than
seeking to understand the human dimensions
embraced by such labels or
the possibilities for renewal offered by
such challenges, church leaders shut
down.
Interior pressures also exert their force.
Often a local church includes a breadth
of persons, with different levels of understanding
and urgency toward the
topic of gay and lesbian rights. Some are
clearly on one side of the issue or the
other. Others may be parents of lesbians
and gay men who, on the one hand
passionately love their children, but on
the other hand know that the church
has been their social circle as well as
their place of inspiration. How can they
stand up for their children and risk losing
an important group of peers? Still
others may be persons devoted to causes
of peace and justice. These folks have
pressed their congregation on every issue
from resistance to the Vietnam war
to recycling soda bottles after church
dinners. They too might fear addressing
the question. If they risk pushing
this volatile topic too far, they might lose
all hope of making headway on other
progressive issues.
Ultimately, some lesbians and gay men
themselves are ambiguous about what
stands their congregations should take.
Some fear that if the congregation takes
a “welcoming” position, they will be
forced to come out before they are ready.
Others worry that if the church becomes
known as a “gay church,” many lesbians
and gay men will flock to it, causing
the congregation’s membership to
become resentful of all the gay/lesbian
folk, themselves included. Still, they retain
a nagging feeling that as long as
the congregation doesn’t make a statement
of acceptance and advocacy, they
will never really be accepted.
With such a diverse gathering of tensions
within and beyond church walls,
it is no wonder that some local congregations
are flustered. The confusion can
be nothing less than overwhelming.
Steps toward Action
Our challenge is to not resign ourselves
to the debate as it has been
framed, but to allow ourselves to seek a
new way—one that is crafted with guidance
from the Holy Spirit. We must chart
paths which do justice to the unique
makeup of our individual congregations.
We must examine our own
unique dynamics as we seek to respond
to the divine call for justice. Those with
parents of lesbians and gays in the congregation
might begin by affirming their
avenues of support, assuring them that
no matter what happens, they are a cherished
part of the community. Those with
social activists might insure that no
single issue gets pitted against another
and that the community as a whole takes
seriously all the concerns raised. Those
who know lesbians and gay men in their
church might promise them that each
step the congregation takes will be intentional
and measured, but that the
congregation is committed to the equality
of all its members. Those congregations
caught in the crossfire of society’s
debate might develop avenues for measured
discernment so that vitriolic either/
or positioning is discouraged.
The great wisdom of the biblical faith
is that ours is a journey toward the holy;
the final destination is not ours to design.
Yes, we must always be straining
for the marks of justice, compassion,
kindness, and humility; but such a journey
involves many steps along the way.
Every step will be as important as the
previous one and as critical as the next.
No Need to be Caught
Ultimately, we cannot avoid being
caught “in between.” The prophet
Isaiah reminds us that God bids us to
“maintain justice, and do what is right,
for soon my salvation will come and my
deliverance will be revealed” (Isa 56:1).
Neither can we tarry long. The Good
News of the gospel demands proclamation
and all people (including persons
who are transgendered, bisexual, gay,
lesbian, as well as all those who are committed
to our place in the church) need
to hear it.
Nor do we need to be “caught in between.”
When a rock and a hard place
come together, the resulting spark might
create fire. The resulting warmth could
be the salvation of the church.▼
Allen V. Harris, pastor of Park Avenue
Christian Church
(Disciples of Christ) in
New York City, also
serves as developer for
the Open & Affirming
Ministries Program of
the GLAD Alliance.
By Allen V. Harris
6 Open Hands
ous diseases, alcoholism, violence, and
perhaps even homosexuality.
Christians believe that, by his death
and resurrection, Jesus Christ brought
about a healing of our break with God,
paving the way also for a healing of the
brokenness of the individual. Healing
in this life results in the transformation
of a person’s character and, sometimes,
even physical restoration. At the very
least, God provides new strength to live
according to his will.
The key to be experiencing this healing
is repentance: a recognition of one’s
brokenness and a turning from one’s
former lifestyle and dependence on
one’s self; a turning to the forgiveness,
grace and full life offered by Jesus Christ.
By endorsing the homosexual
lifestyle without repentance, the
Saratoga church is actually undercutting
the power of Christ to restore and heal.
Far from leading people closer to God
and to true wholeness, they are choosing
to accept a broken condition as normal,
thus leading their people away from
God and into further bondage.
Homosexual persons are definitely
welcome to worship in our church, and,
most probably, in any Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.). However, like all the
rest of us broken persons, they are called
to repent and receive the gospel and allow
Christ to lead them in a new way.
Ordination of someone who refuses to
repent of any broken behavior and refuses
to seek to cease such behavior is
impossible.
We call on our sister church to turn
back from this divisive and destructive
new policy and to continue its long history
of being a loving and reconciling
body. —Rev. John Aldridge and Elders, First
Presbyterian Church, Corinth, New York.▼
Source
This letter was published in The Saratogian
on Sunday 9 July 1995 and reprinted in More
Light Update, December 1995. Used with
permission of pastor.
JULY 3—We were dismayed to learn of our
sister Saratoga Presbyterian-New England
Congregational Church’s decision
to ordain active homosexual persons to
ministry as elders and deacons. It is a
clear violation of our denomination’s
position against gay ordination; it is a
grave disservice to homosexuals; and it
is a basic betrayal of the gospel.
Far from being God’s intention for
creation, homosexuality is rather just
one more example of the general brokenness
of humanity stemming from
human rebellion against God from the
very beginning. This brokenness or sin
is the root of our self-centeredness,
pride, greed and resultant loneliness,
pain and suffering. The breaking of
humanity seems even to have affected
our genetic makeup, as evidenced by
genetic aberrations that may lead to vari-
4 August 1995
Dear Pastor, Elders, and Members of the
First Presbyterian Church, Corinth:
I am in receipt of your July 1995 letter
and I read it in the Sunday Saratogian... I
realize that our actions to become a More
Light family go against the official stand
of our denomination, but it seems to me
that in a world rife with prejudice and barriers,
the new community of God ought
to be able to do better re: the ordination
of homosexuals than our military’s policy
of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” I have known too
many excellent and creative homosexual
pastors and laity to be able to dismiss so
easily their contribution to the faith journeys
of those within the family of the
church.
It is my belief that our church authority
is wrong on this issue and that, in a
hundred or so years, the national church
will treat gay and lesbian ordination in the
same way we now treat the ordination and
leadership of women and African Americans.
As you know, even these latter groups
have been, and sometimes still are, the
subject of debate and biblical controversy,
but much of the earlier passion and prejudice
has quelled with time, understanding,
and appreciation for the contributions
women and African Americans
have made. Before that kind of change
and openness comes to the gay and lesbian
community, an up-to-date conscience,
informed by scripture, is ultimately
the authority to which I as a
Christian yield...
Your letter declares that our stand is
“...against the gospel...” You’re free to
say that, but making such an unequivocal
judgment from your faith perspective
does not necessarily make the statement
any more correct than folks before
Columbus declaring “The world is flat.”
Your missive also makes it quite clear
that you know with certainty the mindset
of the Almighty at the time of creation.
I do not accept that the two (different)
Genesis creation stories where
people were created male and female and
where we are also directed to be vegetarians
and be fruitful and multiply,
are the last word for human understanding
of God’s creative intentions. As a
“child of the fall” I like red meat, and,
of all the commandments, “be fruitful
A church identifies homosexual behavior
as rebellion against God.
Spring 1996 7
and multiply” is one the world’s people
have kept with dangerous abandon! I
also do not hold that it was the Genesis
writers’ intentions to set all the parameters
of all created life. For me Genesis 1
and 2 sets the stage of salvation history:
God’s good creation being challenged
by our free will to create greedy relationships,
unloving barriers, and less
than well thought-out prejudices.
It is my belief that God made the
world good and that healthy community
where each individual can develop and
share their gifts is a goal of the divine
plan. I can not say with a clear conscience
that God intended from the very beginning
to exclude a group of loving and
decent people whose only deviation
(which hurts no one) is their sexual orientation.
Note: I know that anal sex and
the spread of AIDS hurts many—my own
nephew died of AIDS prior to the time
when “safe sex” was being urged upon
the gay community. While I take a very
dim view of gays having unprotected
sex, I am not willing to allow “the AIDS
problem” to taint my general attitude
toward homosexuals or their ordination...
...I appreciate your awareness that
research into the gene and bio-chemical
complexity of our human nature is
applicable and should be factored into
our understanding of God’s truths as
contained in scripture. From my vantage
point we have to be very careful
in...equating behavioral disease with
states of being. Your letter seems to lump
violence, alcoholism, and homosexuality
into one gene genre. You are correct
that research is beginning to show that
(1) negative social activity like violence
and a predisposition to alcoholism
might be related to gene defects or biochemical
imbalances. We also know that
(2) certain diseases are related to our
biological make-up: Alzheimer’s, cystic
fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, etc. And we
know that (3) natural hair color, eye
color, and male or femaleness are biologically
determined.
You and I would apparently disagree
as to whether homosexuality should fall
into category (1) or (3). While we both
believe the healing power of faith can
cure some behaviors, it does not correct
the underlying genetic [disposition].
Unlike violence and alcoholism, which
we agree are destructive to self and society,
I do not believe that homosexuals
are destructive when acting responsibly
according to their heredity. Since the
majority of homosexuals I know, like my
heterosexual friends, are decent, creative,
caring people who have served the
church well, I am prone to put their
gayness or lesbianism in the last category
(3). This obviously affects my attitude
toward their ordination and their “need”
to be made whole...
When I moderated your session
many years ago, I had the pleasure of
working with Chris Von Seggern. I know
that she, along with other women,
makes a wonderful and much needed
contribution to your church family.
Chris also signed your letter as Clerk of
Session. While I believe it can be shown
that there are different interpretations
and translations [for biblical references
on same-sex conduct], it appears to my
best reading that there is absolutely no
conflict of interpretations in 1 Timothy
2:9-15 regarding women as teachers and
leaders or in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 regarding
elders being male only, not divorced...
...I would be interested in knowing
how you can use a few debatable scriptures
to inform your rather unyielding
stand on homosexuals while (apparently)
totally ignoring a very clear and
unequivocal scriptural directive as to the
place of women in church leadership
and education? You might agree with me
and take the position that portions of 1
Timothy are out of date and inappropriate...
If we adapt 1 Timothy to fit our
positive experience of women in the
church, why not factor in the wonderful
contributions and decency of gays
and lesbians we know and then do the
same with New Testament scriptures
that could narrowly be interpreted as
anti-homosexual?
Well—sorry to take up so much space
and time, but I thought your concerns
worthy of as thoughtful a response as I
could muster at the moment. I would
be happy at any time to come personally
and share with you folks if you
thought that helpful to build bridges of
honest Christian understanding...
Warm regards,
John (Jay) A. Ekman, pastor
Presbyterian-New England
Congregational Church
(More Light and ONA)
Saratoga Springs, New York ▼
Source
This letter is excerpted from a longer one
originally sent to the church in Corinth and
later published in More Light Update, December
1995. Used with permission of pastor.
8 Open Hands
There is a tide in human affairs (to
borrow Tennyson’s meaning)
which should be taken at the
flood. Now is such a time. It is the best
and worst of times. It is the fullness of
time (Dickens’ characterization of social
revolution). It is kairos, that biblical
moment when something good, with
God at the bottom of it, breaks through
history’s logjam.
For millennia sexual minorities have
been despised, harassed, oppressed, and
scattered. Yet in the quirkiness of the
human spirit, against all odds, their time
has come. As often has been the case,
religion is the last to recognize the
breakthrough of God. Religion is the last
and most passionate to defend the old
order. Again, it is the story of our times.
Much good has come from the
Gaylesbian Uprising.1 Forcibly closeted
people have come out. Committed relationships
have been blessed and nourished.
Yet another injustice has been
publicly exposed. Community has been
formed, complete with public institutions.
From the stuff of silence, shame,
and loneliness has come an occasion to
find new wineskins for ever-new wine
in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Members of First Baptist, Granville,
Ohio, for overlapping, prosaic reasons,
came to see the Gaylesbian Uprising as
a good thing. A year ago, this old church
resolved to stand openly with the Uprising.
Our doing so has brought the
Baptist branch of the body of Christ to
crisis. Crisis (the intersection of judgment
and promise) only comes when
there is power to take up the promise.
Our witness, along with that of a small
number of other churches, is to the advent
of that power. According to our
great chorus of critics, however, we have
been disloyal, have caused division, and
worst, have violated scripture. Here is
our response.
Disloyalty
Jesus, in loyalty to God, said, “I come
not to bring peace, but division.”
Amos, loyal to Hebrew religion, cried,
“I hate, I despise your feasts.” Luther,
lieved pattern of social injustice. This,
on biblical grounds, is a bad way to interpret
scripture.
Second, at issue for us is the reality
of the Gaylesbian Uprising. Despite its
overpublicized excesses, the stigmatized
sick are cared for, the closeted are being
released, and the humiliated and alienated
are healed. In the gaylesbian community,
homes are formed, public injustices
are exposed, and a sexual
minority is getting in touch with the
full range of its powers.2 Against such
there is no prohibition. Indeed, the
“shameless,” “unnatural,” “unlawful”
sex referred to in the above passages does
not describe committed relationships or
contemporary gaylesbian life.
Finally, at issue for us is the urgent
call to Christian evangelism. The gospel
has been snatched from the
gaylesbian community. God has been
presented to gay and lesbian people as a
vengeful Being who is revolted by who
they are. Humane straight people have
watched churches being mean and cruel
for love of such a God. But Jesus gave
his life precisely to correct this image of
God and this sort of religion. It is our
chief calling to mediate God’s healing
love where it is most wanting. Today this
place is the gaylesbian community.▼
Notes
1Editor’s note: “Gaylesbian Uprising” is not
a universally used term; others refer to “gay/
lesbian movement” or “les/bi/gay movement.”
2This is a paraphrase of Jesus’ evaluation of
his own controversial movement (Matt 11:3-
6).
George Williamson, Jr., Ph.D., is pastor of
First Baptist, Granville, Ohio (see p. 30),
the first church in the history of the American
Baptist Churches, USA to be disfellowshipped
for standing
with the gay and lesbian
community. He
is writing a book, Religion
of the Wrong
Side: Gaylesbian Uprising
and the Breakthrough
of God.
still loyal to his church, stood on its
scripture against his church. Martin
Luther King, Jr., in fierce loyalty to
America, violated America’s laws. Loyalty
without integrity is supreme disloyalty.
Division
Our denomination, like most others,
passed anti-gaylesbian legislation
stating that “Homosexual practice
is incompatible with Christian teaching.”
According to the pain of les/bi/gay
sisters and brothers—pain inflicted by
that judgment and the overlapping
waves of social oppression thundering
from it—division is already caused. We
have simply crossed the dividing line.
We have simply joined those who are
divided off. We have caused no division.
Rather, we hope that our predominantly
straight church in a straight, heartland,
small town can be a bridge of reconciliation
across this gaping wound in the
body of Christ.
Violation
At issue for our critics are four obscure
passages in Leviticus 18-20,
Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy
1. Also at issue for them is a
heterosexist interpretation of the creation
story and a homophobic interpretation
of the Sodom story. To these they
add everything negative the Bible says
about sex.
At issue for us, first of all, is a history
of biblical interpretation which has led
to a succession of monstrous social evils:
the Crusades, witch trials, inquisitions,
murders of church dissenters, suppressions
of modern scientists and early
democrats, anti-Semitic pogroms, legitimation
of slavery, massive opposition
to abolition, violence toward the civil
rights movement and countless social
revolutions, and the ongoing oppression
of women. The bottom line of biblical
law, said Jesus, is selfless love of God and
neighbor, “by [which] fruits shall you
know them.” Traditional interpretation
of the above mentioned passages has led
to the closet, gay bashing, and an unre-
By George Williamson, Jr.
Spring 1996 9
In October 1994 a gay couple joined
our church. Brent and Jerry’s sponsor,
Pam, introduced them to the
congregation using the word “companion”
to connect them. Pam felt comfortable
enough to use this word to acknowledge
their relationship to the
congregation. I wasn’t ready for the next
three months of response.
Two members from our congregation
expressed concern to our pastor
about the introduction and questioned
what it meant. One member’s husband
came to the church council shortly after
the introduction and asked the council
to consider a policy in which only
married couples would be introduced
together. Anyone who was not married
would be introduced individually.
Well, I just about hit the roof. I’m
sure some people felt I had. I will not
go into all the discussions that preceded
the January 1995 council meeting, but
it was quite interesting and yet painful.
It was one of the largest ever attended.
The man who had come to the council
meeting proposing his own policy of
introduction was back again. Dan and I
(along with Brent and Jerry) were there.
I had asked some heterosexual married
couples in our church to come and
speak on our behalf. Others came on
KNOWN COMPANIONS: Tim Eudy
(left) and his companion Dan Hill have
been members of Advent Lutheran
Church in Charlotte, North Carolina for
eleven years.
their own. I was so grateful. It’s so hard
to put on paper what we went through
before, during, and after the meeting. I
really felt a lot of anger about the meeting
because I thought our church was
so far beyond this type of petty stuff. I
think we really were, but it is often possible
for a few people to set policies by
just being loud and vocal. After a lengthy
discussion, we came up with a compromise
that seemed to work for everyone:
It is recommended that the introduction
of members be made in a
way that is comfortable and acceptable
for the new members under the
guidance of the pastor. It is recognized
that the use of terms such as
companions, friends, partners, etc.
is not an affirmation of a relationship,
but the recognition that a relationship
exists; and we recognize
that all people are welcome to the
family of God and the family of
Advent Lutheran Church.
I felt a lot of anger when I was accused
of blowing this incident out of
proportion. It was a very serious issue
for me. I hope it is for you too. I hope
none of you ever have to go through
some of the things that happened to us.
May God bless each and every one of
you.▼
By Tim Eudy
10 Open Hands
Two years ago a closeted lesbian pastor of a small, rural
American Baptist congregation in Rhode Island was challenged
by one of the deacons to disclose her sexual orientation.
After a series of meetings, in which the pastor came
out, the church turned down a recommendation by the Board
of Deacons to ask for her resignation. On the second anniversary
of this decision, the pastor and deacon reflect.
Why Howie Took Action
Brenda: It all started on Martin Luther King Sunday... I used a
prepared litany on the oppression of the black
community and how oppression still exists in the
world today...and there was this “list”...
Howie: Yeah... (joint laughter)
Brenda ...and in the list, it said “gay and lesbian people.” I
struggled about whether to take that phrase out.
Howie: ...and I picked up on it. I had suspected for a while
that you were gay. I thought I should call a few key
people in the church and let them know my feelings.
Everything went from there.
Brenda: That was two years ago. And we’re still here!
Howie: Right! ( joint laughter)
Brenda: So, what was it that concerned you?
Howie: I want be able to go to my pastor with moral issues
and have them respond in a biblical sense. But if
they’re not following what I consider to be a biblical
principle, then how can I rely on them for anything
else? And I certainly didn’t know much about you at
the time...so...
Brenda: According to your interpretation of scripture,
homosexuality is wrong, and here I was as pastor
saying “I’m gay and homosexuality is OK.” That went
against everything you believe, so therefore, how
could I be your pastor and proclaim the gospel?
Howie: Exactly. That was the major conflict for me.
Brenda: Another concern in the congregation was “What about
the kids?” Not in the sense of what I would DO to the
kids...but rather “You’re the pastor, the kids like you,
you’re a role model. This ‘life-style’ isn’t something
we want our children to follow. If you stay, how are
we going to reconcile that?” So, in addition to your
concern about my being the pastor and leading the
congregation, others had this question of my
mentoring the children.
Howie: Exactly.
Unresolved Issues
Brenda: So, although the church didn’t call for my resignation,
we still haven’t resolved these two issues.
Howie: I guess not, not for everybody. I think it’s up to the
parents to teach the children. I don’t necessarily think
that you being there is going to sway them one way
or another. As for being a pastor, well I certainly feel
you are called by God. That one issue of your sexuality,
that’s between you and God. It’s out of my
hands...that’s how I’ve resolved it.
Brenda: So we agree that we disagree, but the difference is still
there?
Howie: It’s always going to be there. The only way it can be
resolved is either you have to see my point and change,
or I have to see your point and change. I don’t think
that’s ever going to happen.
Brenda: Maybe that’s the point. So many people use so much
energy trying to convince the other person that “I’m
right, you’re wrong, and in order for us to live together,
you’ve got to agree with me.”
Howie: That’s not happening here.
Why People Didn’t Leave
Brenda: What keeps us in ministry together in the midst of
our differences?
Howie: For me, I’ve got to trust God. He’s either going to have
to point out to one or the other of us that we’re wrong,
or work around it, or work with it; but, bottom line,
it’s God’s job.
Brenda: So the resolution for you is in letting it go and letting
God be in control. You did what you felt you needed
to do. I did what I felt I needed to do. Then we just say
“OK, God, the rest is up to you?”
Howie: That’s right...and it’s no longer an issue.
Brenda: And not one person has left the church, as far as we
know, over the issue of my sexuality.
Howie: That’s right.
Brenda: What is it about our church that kept people there?
Howie: Well, the way I feel about the church is, if I leave for
everything I disagree with, I could change churches
for the rest of my life and never be happy. I’m happy
with everything and everyone here. There’s just too
strong a nucleus to let anything break it up.
Brenda: But that’s not typical. What holds us together?
Howie: God...the Holy Spirit. I have no other explanation.
Brenda: It does seem so simple. When I tell my story to people,
they always ask, “How many people left?” When I say
By Brenda J. Moulton and Howard Miller
Spring 1996 11
“Nobody,” they ask “Well, what about the guy who
made the phone calls?” When I respond, “Oh, he’s
still there. I baptized his son last summer,” they can’t
believe it. (joint laugher) When I’m asked why people
haven’t left, I explain that people are committed to
their ministry, to the church, to Christ, to living out
what they feel called to do, and so they’re still there
doing it.
Howie: Yeah.
Brenda: Yet so many other people would say “My commitment
to God says I have to leave. I can’t stay in this place
where there’s this sin.” People use the same argument,
their commitment to Christ, to leave.
Howie: That reminds me of the scripture where Jesus said “I
come to heal the sick.” I don’t need to go to a church
where everybody’s all set.
Brenda: The scripture I thought of was “Christ is our peace and
has broken down the walls of hostility between us.”
Howie: It may seem that it was a drastic issue for me at the
time, but it’s no worse than someone who smokes, or
someone who gets pregnant out of marriage, or
someone who cheats on his wife. There are no scales
of points on sin—sin is sin.
Brenda: The difference here is that I don’t say that
homosexuality is sinful, whereas most people would
agree that cheating on your wife is a sin. Still, I agree,
if my relationship with Pat were a sinful relationship,
it wouldn’t be any worse than any of those other sins.
Howie: A lot of pastors smoke, and drink, and everything else,
and it’s worse to hide it than it is to say, hey, I do it,
that’s the way it is.
Brenda: So does the fact that I’m open about my sexuality
make it easier for you to tolerate the difference?
Howie: Sure. If you really think something’s wrong, you’re
going to hide it.
How God Is Working in Us
Brenda: How do you feel God working in our church or with
you or me in this issue?
Howie: He’s keeping us all together. Obviously he’s there. So
many faithful people are congregating nearly every
Sunday—and even more people showing up now.
Brenda: Do you think there’s any connection between what
we’ve been through and the growth we’re
experiencing now?
Howie: Yes. There’s tolerance for accepting other people for
who they are.
Brenda: I agree. Because we grappled with the issue of sexuality,
we became more sensitive and willing to struggle with
each other on tough issues. We are getting new people
from many different theological points of view and
church backgrounds. They feel that who they are and
what they believe is welcomed in our church.
Howie: Right! We don’t challenge each other with different
doctrine and scripture. There’s no need to talk about
it because it’s not that big a deal any more.
Brenda: In a way, though, we are continuing to deal with it. I
used to use sexual orientation as an example when I
named how people are discriminated against. I’ve
dropped that because I don’t want to be “in your face.”
Yet, every time I stand up in that pulpit I’m saying
something about my beliefs about sexuality. How has
that affected how you see me as your pastor?
Howie: Well it’s changed because you haven’t done anything.
Everything else seems to be in line with what I believe
and what I think the scriptures say. You’re the first
person I call when I have something I need to talk
about and when I need Christian advice.
Brenda: The fact that we disagree over the interpretation of
parts of scripture doesn’t negate what I say about
everything else?
Howie: Not at all. This seems to be the only issue.
Advice for Other Churches
Brenda: What advice would you have for other churches in a
conflict like we went through, whether it was about
sexuality or some other issue?
Howie: Take a look at yourself first. The scripture says “Remove
the plank from your own eye.” And trust God and the
Holy Spirit.
Brenda: We maintained respect for one another and for our
opinions—even when those opinions differed. We saw
the Christ in the other and valued God’s creation in
that other person.
Howie: Yes, and if you have compassion for people, you’ll get
through whatever you have to get through. A lot of
things boil down to compassion for people. You either
have it or you don’t. If you don’t, you’ll be very narrow
because your way is the only way. If you have it,
sometimes you have to see the other side even if you
never agree with it.▼
DEEP IN CONVERSATION: Brenda J. Moulton, pastor, and
Howard Miller, deacon, of Chestnut Hill Baptist Church, Exeter,
Rhode Island, continue their dialogue. Brenda is also
coordinator of the Association of Welcoming & Affirming
Baptists. Howie teaches the Jr. High Sunday School class.
12 Open Hands
Zion United Church of Christ in
Henderson, Kentucky knows the
tension between honoring a
congregation’s rich history and hearing
a call toward progressive ministries.
Organized in 1871, this little downtown
German Evangelical congregation still
worships in its original historic sanctuary
built in 1873. This year, we are celebrating
125 years of ministry and service.
In 1992, however, a remnant of only
twelve faithful elderly members remained.
The church was forced to make
some hard decisions. With all the makings
of a made-for-TV movie, these courageous
members—ranging in age from
76 to 92—committed all church savings
to one intensive year of radical renewal.
They knew that Zion was not dead, but
would be, unless drastic measures were
taken.
Desiring to return to my hometown
to start an intentional, inclusive Christian
community, I knew Zion UCC and
its urban-related neighborhood would
be a great place for this type of covenantbased
community. I was hired by Zion
Church to implement a progressive vision
of congregational renewal.
Since that time, the new has remarkably
blended with the old. Zion remains
a distinctively historic, but diverse, place
of worship and service. We have 150
members and a worshipping community
of about 220. This year, fifty-eight
people wrote covenants to live and work
as an intentional community. The original
elderly members—now ages 80 to
96—are confirmed supporters of the
church’s transformation. Believing that
Zion has the potential to double its
membership in the next three years, the
Indiana-Kentucky UCC Conference and
the United Church Board for Homeland
Ministries are now offering assistance.
How well we understand the tensions
between historic loyalties and the spirit’s
leading to new avenues of opportunity!
The increase in membership has caused
some internal growing pains. Also the
church’s decisions to hire an openly gay
pastor, to become an open and affirming
congregation, and most recently, to
volunteer to house the city’s first
Planned Parenthood Health Clinic, have
created external dissension by a few fundamentalist
pastors and congregations.
Some right-wing folks have been most
upset about our inclusive language commitments.
God is definitely not feminine,
they insist.
While the external tension can be
frustrating, the internal atmosphere
must not get mired in the same kind of
discord and disrespect. The storm without
cannot become the storm within.
Six suggestions we here at Zion have to
offer to other churches who are living
in the midst of conflict include:
Remember the covenant. Remind
people of the covenant.
Find opportunities to discuss—
again and again—what it means to
be a covenant people. Set up structures
which make people accountable
to a covenant relationship.
For Zion, this has meant an annual
process of covenant-making
and plenty of opportunities to
check up on how we are doing
with these promises to one another.
Potential members spend a
period of time in covenant groups
discussing the meaning of living
in covenant—a novitiate of sorts.
Change your method of conducting
business. Instead of
using a democratic form of government
(most votes wins), implement
a consensus model of decision-
making. Remember, the
process is just as important as the
outcome. Consensus is much
more than “unanimous vote.”
Instead, it requires possible dissenters
and nay-sayers to voice
concerns up front. In the end, consensus
means all parties can live
with a decision and support it for
the good of the whole congregation.
Do not assume that older
members will automatically take
the conservative position. Experience
teaches me that middle aged
parishioners are sometimes the
most reluctant to welcome
change—they’re just getting
settled into current traditions.
By J. Bennett Guess
Spring 1996 13
Encourage ways to enhance creativity,
imagination, and celebration.
Many churches have forgotten
the value of programs and
activities which stimulate joy and
creativity in people of all ages.
Thus, we have inhibited the freeflow
of ideas and weakened our
abilities to visualize something
different from present reality.
Sponsor creativity classes. Create
an art gallery. Invite people to
draw with their non-dominant
hand. Pass out crayons and play
dough at potlucks. Write and read
poetry. Vary the musical offerings
of the church. Congregations that
better utilize the performing and
visual arts in worship and education
are more likely to invite the
imagination into times of decision-
making. And the church will
be a lot more fun!
In the midst of change, rely on
historical methods of spiritual
growth and support. Read more
scripture. Offer more opportunities
for prayer and communion.
Hold more hands. Give more
hugs. Talk it through. Spend time
with any dissenters. Utilize house
worship. Hold fast to the covenant.
Remember to be a church—
not a political party, not a business,
not a club—but a church. It’s
what the church should do best.
Remind one another of kindness,
humility, meekness, and patience.
And over all of these, put on love
which binds the rest together and
makes them perfect.▼
J. Bennett Guess is pastor of Zion United Church of
Christ, an intentional, inclusive Christian community
in Henderson, Kentucky.
Be a congregation or a pastor
that is guided by principle and
character, not church growth.
“Numbers” is not the name of the
game. Reality is that some people
may leave. However, remember
that courageous churches will attract
new people. And understand
that new ideas are often at odds
with the past. Recognize this as a
pastoral care priority, but not as
an impossible task.
Know your congregation’s history
and relate current struggles
to past events. During both world
wars, anti-German prejudice was
so strong that Zion Church felt the
sting. Hateful rumors were circulated
that one German-American
church member, a baker, was
grinding up glass and putting it
into pastries. The prejudice nearly
destroyed his business. In the
1950s, Zion Church and its pastor,
the Rev. Theodore Braun, led
the way against the racist White
Citizens Council and their
planned boycott of public schools
during racial integration. Also, for
many years, the congregation
sponsored a boy scout troop
which equally included Zion’s
children and Jewish children from
the neighborhood. Through close
personal friendships, the church
came to recognize the pain of anti-
Semitism. Remember, liberation is
not a new idea; it is deeply rooted
in our church histories and the
stories of scripture. Go down,
Moses, way down in Egypt’s
land...
14 Open Hands
This great principle, drafted in
1788, gave rise to the Reformation
when Martin Luther, John Calvin,
and others declared that no one individual
or church hierarchy could dictate
the judgment of a private individual.
Today, the Historic Principles of Church
Order of the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.) begin with this statement.1
The Reformed faith places great importance
on the freedom of conscience.
We are guided by a number of confessions
of faith, rather than bound by a
prescribed doctrine. We trust the Spirit
to inform and lead us. This principle also
calls us to a high level of individual and
corporate responsibility. All church
members are compelled by our Reformed
tradition to read and study the
scripture and confessions in search of
new truths for a new world. Karl Barth,
one of the greatest Reformed theologians
of this century, said that we should
always have a Bible in one hand and a
newspaper in the other.
This combination of freedom and responsibility
has led the Presbyterian
church into numerous conflicts of conscience.
When abolitionists found their
voices in the mid-19th century, conflict
led to a split in the denomination.
In the 1920s and 1930s, heated debates
over creation and evolution almost
split the church again. During
the civil rights movement, hundreds
of Presbyterians marched for freedom
while countless congregations
fled to the suburbs. For decades,
women cried out for recognition of
their gifts. As their voices were finally
heard, dozens of congregations,
which could not “in good conscience”
ordain women, left to join
more conservative branches of the
Presbyterian church. It seems a tension
has always existed between our
responsibility to maintain the
“peace, unity, and purity of the
church” and our call to heed the
words of the prophets in our midst.2
The “More Light” churches movement
arose within this very tension. In
1978, when the General Assembly issued
a statement essentially banning ordination
of gays and lesbians, the lone voices
of David Sindt, Bill Silver, and a few others
began crying out in the wilderness,
declaring this action to be little more
than Bible-based bigotry. Over time, a
few congregations declared they could
not “in good conscience” be guided by
this action. In the spirit of “the church
reformed, always reforming,” these congregations
took the Bible in one hand
and the works of history, culture, science,
and medicine in the other. With
their collective declaration that there
was “yet more light” to be shed and thus
the church’s ban could not stand as the
final word, the More Light movement
was born.3
More Light congregations live within
a tension that is peculiarly Reformed. A
More Light congregation is nothing
more than one which has made a public
statement welcoming gay, lesbian,
and bisexual people into full membership
and participation within the life of
the church, including ordained office.
Individual Presbyterian churches are
free to make such statements of conscience.
However, all churches are bound
to uphold the actions of the General
Assembly, which disallows ordination of
lesbigay folk. So conflict occurs when a
church acts on its beliefs and actually
calls a gay person to be ordained as a
deacon, elder, or minister.
Dozens of church judicial cases have
come and gone, but little has been resolved.
Feeling the tensions of its Reformed
roots and its long history of
theological diversity, the denomination
itself has been loathe to take decisive
action. As a result, several More Light
churches have been threatened with
action, dragged into judicial cases, or
forced to back off ordaining elders.
However, no More Light church has
been forced against its will to rescind a
statement. No More Light church has
actually been “taken over” or closed.
The conscience of the church remains
free, even while it is not free to act on
it.
The conscience of the
church remains free,
even while it is not free
to act on it
As long as this tension exists, there
is hope for change. As long as prophets
are free to speak, as long as More Light
churches continue to declare their own
conscience, as long as we remain
faithful to what we believe is just and
true, hearts will be moved. Our faith,
along with that of all Presbyterians,
is that Jesus Christ alone is the
church’s hope. As long as this is true,
we have faith that the Spirit will lead
us through this conflict to a new
place of reconciliation.▼
Notes
1Book of Order, G-1.0300.
2Book of Order, G-14.0405 and Book of
Confessions, 5.144,147.
3“More Light” is from John Robinson:
“We limit not the truth of God to our
poor reach of mind...by notions of our
day and sect...crude, partial and confined.
No, let a new and better hope with
our hearts be stirred, for God hath yet
more light and truth to break forth from
the Word through the Spirit.” (1620).
AWARD WINNER: Martha Juillerat (right) poses with
her partner Tammy (center) and Carol Seaton, who
had just presented Martha with the Inclusive Church
Award at Presbyterians for Lesbian and Gay Concerns
during General Assembly in 1995. Martha set aside
her ordination in September 1995 in protest of her
denomination’s treatment of gay, lesbian, and
bisexual folk. She currently owns a painting and
wallpapering business in Kansas City, Missouri.
By Martha Juillerat
Spring 1996 15
Gustavo Gutierrez once remarked
that the commandment to love
our enemies presupposes an earlier
commandment: make enemies.
Christians who engage in the ministry
of reconciliation must not forget that
reconciliation presupposes a situation
of conflict. The most important skill to
demonstrate in such a case is to accept
the reality of conflict. Church people
do not live well with conflict; most simply
assume that the church should be a
place of peace and comfort. Pastors and
laity who understand and accept their
prophetic role need to educate other
parishioners to the reality, and even
desirability, of conflict. M. Scott Peck
reminds us that the church pretends to
be the body of Christ, but then forgets
that the body was lacerated, wounded,
stretched to the maximum, and finally
killed.
Having said that, one must go on to
the commandment to love one’s enemies.
Those who disagree with us need
to be loved by us, prayed over by us,
invited to the communion table by us.
The Twenty-third Psalm provides us
with an older image of dealing with the
enemies: Thou preparest a table before
me in the presence of mine enemies. The
preposition before is extremely important.
It is not for me that the table is set.
It is before me but my opponent is not
excluded from it. My opponent might
not want to participate, but it is my obligation
to remind the opponent that the
God who knows and loves us both is
the one who has set the table.
Our hymnody also picks up this
theme in “Help Us Accept Each Other.”
Let your acceptance change us
so that we may be moved
in living situations to do the
truth in love;
to practice your acceptance,
until we know by heart
the table of forgiveness and
laughter’s healing art.1
Finally, as the hymn also suggests, a
dose of humor is an important skill to
practice in conflictive situations. The
words humor, humble, and human are
all connected by the root word humus—
dirt, ground, earth. When we remember
we all come from the same dirt,
earth, we will find common ground.▼
Note
1Fred Kaan, 1974, verse 3.
Ignacio Castuera is pastor of Hollywood
United Methodist Church, a Reconciling
Congregation in Hollywood, California.
By Ignacio Castuera
16 Open Hands
January 1995—
Bishop Writes to Synod
On several occasions during the past
months I have been asked about
how I intend to respond to several issues
which I inherited when I was
elected to this office. Each time I indicated
that I did not intend to act in haste,
but would take time for consultation
and reflection. I believe the time has
come for me to indicate how I will respond...
1
St. Paul says to the Colossians (8:12):
“As God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved,
clothe yourselves with compassion,
kindness, humility, meekness, and
patience. Bear with one another and, if
anyone has a complaint against another,
forgive each other just as the Lord has
forgiven you, so you also must forgive.
Above all, clothe yourselves with love
which binds everything together in perfect
harmony.” These words give clear
direction as to how we might live together
with the differences that emerge
from our varied experiences of life...
As you know, the San Francisco and
the East Bay Conferences have each
elected deans who are not rostered
clergy of the ELCA. In reviewing this
situation, both conferences have indicated
that they wish to continue with
their present leadership. In addition, St.
Paul Lutheran Church in Oakland continues
to be served by Pastor Ross
Merkel, who was its pastor for eleven
years prior to his removal from the
clergy roster in March of 1994.
...Let me speak first of all about St.
Paul Lutheran Church in Oakland. This
congregation continues to provide
strong support to the ELCA and to the
Sierra Pacific Synod. A member of the
congregation serves on the Synod Executive
Committee and as synod treasurer.
The congregation continues to
support and serve its community
through various ministries to the sick
and homeless, in addition to providing
strong Word and Sacrament ministry. It
is my intention to declare that this parish
is vacant. No pastor will be listed for
St. Paul in the ELCA yearbook or in
synod statistics. Representation at synod
assemblies will be limited to lay delegates.
It is my intention to act within
the spirit of Paul’s letter to the
Colossians as we deal with sisters and
brothers in Christ who are honestly and
sincerely seeking to be obedient to the
gospel in the situation in which they
find themselves. It is my purpose to be
as supportive as I can within the boundaries
of faithfulness to the constitution.
The two non-rostered conference
deans present a different situation.
There are no structures in place to discipline
a conference even if one should
desire to do that. It is, however, my belief
that the actions of the conferences
are in implicit, if not in explicit, conflict
with the constitution... I shall take
direct responsibility for the San Francisco
and East Bay Conferences... From
the point of view of the synod, these
offices will be seen as vacant. At the conference
level, the elected deans may
function to gather clergy and congregations
and preside over conference assemblies,
as long as that is the wish of the
conference. However, my office will assume
responsibility in matters relating
to pastoral vacancies and installation of
pastors and AIMs.2 I...will also assume
responsibility for clergy, AIMs, and congregations
who would not be receptive
to the pastoral care of the dean in these
conferences... [T]his relationship can be
cumbersome, even difficult. However, I
believe that it is the best resolution of
this matter at present.
The above actions will allow us to
“bear with one another, ...to forgive one
another...”, and it will give time to continue
“to clothe ourselves with love” as
we walk together and seek to find that
path which most clearly expresses the
heart and mind of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
There are those on both sides of the
issue who would urge me to take swift
and decisive action. On one side, they
would urge me to act within a strict interpretation
of the constitution... On the
other, they would urge me to embrace
the actions of the conferences and to
authorize Pastor Merkel to serve as the
pastor of St. Paul’s. My action in choosing
neither of those options recognizes
that truth is not captive to any ideological
position, but is discovered as people
of faith come together in prayer and
mutual affirmation to seek the path of
faithfulness.
...Please do not misread my actions...
In those instances where it is clear to
me that there is direct and malicious
disregard for the constitution, I will not
hesitate to act with all the authority of
this office. We have made covenants
together and it is important that we be
able to count on one another to be faithful
to those agreements.
As my schedule allows, I will be
available...for discussion of these actions...
I do not expect that we will all
agree; I do expect that we will engage in
serious and respectful dialogue with one
another as together we search for what
it means to be faithful to God in this
time and place.
Let me now return to Paul’s letter to
the Colossians: “Let the word of Christ
dwell in you richly; teach and admonish
one another in all wisdom; and with
gratitude in your hearts sing psalms,
hymns, and spiritual songs to God.” Let
us be about that purpose! While we may
be concerned about the issues discussed
above, they ought not divert us from this
baptismal commission to make Christ
known... I pray that it is around this
purpose that we can find our unity and
the courage to move into the year ahead
with boldness. In God’s love and care.▼
By Robert W. Mattheis and the Sierra Pacific Synod Council
Robert W. Mattheis,
Bishop of Sierra Pacific
Synod, ELCA, in California,
seeks to maintain
connections while
upholding church law.
Spring 1996 17
1990-1995—
Another Conflict/
Another Solution
In another Lutheran conflict two San
Francisco churches six years ago challenged
an ELCA ordination policy that
requires a vow of celibacy from gay and
lesbian candidates. St. Francis and First
United Lutheran Churches ordained
three pastors in January 1990 who
would not agree to the celibacy requirement.
St. Francis, with almost half of its
membership gay or lesbian, called Ruth
Frost and Phyllis Zillhart, a lesbian
couple. First United, a church with a liberal
tradition, but few gay members,
called Jeff Johnson, a gay man.3 Jim
Lokken, of St. Francis, summarizes what
happened next:
“In a highly publicized hearing before
the ELCA discipline committee, the
two congregations asked the discipline
committee to review the justice of the
ELCA’s policy... The ELCA argued that
the issue was simply one of violation of
the constitution and that the two congregations
should be expelled. By a vote
of 6 to 5, the committee sided with the
ELCA. It provided, however, that the
congregations would be ‘suspended’ for
five years, during which time it hoped
that the issue could be studied and the
disagreement between the congregations
and the parent church resolved.
By the end of 1995, nothing had changed
and the congregations were [to be] expelled.”
4
Before the disfellowshipping took
place, the following motion was passed
by Sierra Pacific Synod Council, representing
more attempts to maintain connections:
The Council reaffirms the Synod’s
intent, expressed in the Synod Assembly
Resolution 95-5, that we “explore
creative ways to maintain a strong bond
of fellowship” with these congregations.
To that end, the Council intends to begin
this process in the following ways:
(1) By asking the Bishop to write a
prayer petition for the two congregations
which might be commended
to all congregations of the
Synod for use on 31 December 1995,
the Sunday prior to their expulsion
(6) By encouraging members of the
ELCA to make their concern for
these congregations concrete by
joining them in worship as they
may have opportunity.
(7) By asking the Bishop to offer to
continue to provide pastoral care
to the clergy and members of these
congregations as needed and desired.
The Council intends to review these
points and the status of our “bond of
fellowship” with these congregations in
September 1996. Motion carried.5▼
Notes
1Article is excerpted from letter to Sierra
Pacific Synod.
2AIM means Associate in Ministry.
3Data was provided by Jim Lokken, “Background”
paper, 10 February 1996.
4Lokken, ibid.
5Minutes from Sierra Pacific Synod Council,
15-16 September 1995, p. 5.
under the terms of the disciplinary
decision. (See above.)
(2) By urging the San Francisco Conference
to continue to include the
congregations in Conference activities
insofar as possible.
(3) By directing the Synod office to
keep the congregations on the
Synod’s mailing list, and by requesting
the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America to do the same.
(4) By expressing our hope to the congregations
that they might be available
as resources for others in areas
in ministry where they have expertise.
(5) By asking the Bishop to invite clergy
and members of the congregations
to attend the Synod Assembly as
visitors and observers as they are interested
and able.
18 Open Hands
In January 1996, four Baptist
churches in California were recommended
for exclusion from their regional
body, the American Baptist
Churches of the West (ABCW). Following
this recommendation, the 68-member
ABCW voted on 9 March to exclude
Lakeshore Avenue Baptist Church, Oakland;
San Leandro Community Church;
First Baptist Church, Berkeley; and New
Community of Faith, San Jose.
Earlier, in June 1995, the Columbus
Association in Ohio dismissed First Baptist
Church in Granville, Ohio, (see pp.
8, 30) for “accepting gays and lesbians
without trying to change them...” Their
dismissal was acknowledged by the
American Baptist Churches of Ohio.
Both actions appear to challenge historical
American Baptist principles of
allowing a local church autonomy in
defining its own ministry, interpreting
scripture, and governing itself.
Speaking to New York Times writer
Gustav Niebuhr, Robert Rasmussen, the
executive minister of the ABCW who
called the special California meeting,
noted “There come times in life when
you have to say no.” He added that the
vote to exclude was a vote to defend
heterosexual marriage as the only biblically
sanctioned expression of human
sexuality.1
“We decline to be excluded, thank
you very much,” said Martha L. Olney,
treasurer at First Baptist. “First Baptist
Church of Berkeley is an American Baptist
church, has been an American Baptist
church, and will remain an American
Baptist church. We will continue to
witness to the redemptive power of
God’s inclusive love in our world…to
support American Baptist missions at
home and throughout the world…to
work toward restoration of Baptist principles…”
2
While many Ohio area churches
spoke against First Baptist of Granville,
Jack H. Warwick, a deacon at American
Baptist in Westerville supported it, saying
the pastor George Williamson and
his church “are leading us. I think what
they are doing is great.”3
Normally, Baptist churches are dismissed
from fellowship with the American
Baptist body because they do not
meet the “common criteria” for ABC
churches. This is the first time churches
have been disfellowshipped against their
will—and on theological grounds rather
than covenant criteria. Other American
Baptist churches and leaders are
alarmed.
The Baptist controversy over autonomy
emerges from the fact that the
five churches joined the Association of
Welcoming and Affirming Baptists (a
national group which advocates accepting
gay and lesbian persons into full
participation of church life). Their joining
was a public statement of how they
define at least part of their ministries.
Since Baptists emphasize local
church autonomy, the five churches
continue to be American Baptist
churches unless and until the national
denominational body decides otherwise.
In a related action, Dolores Street
Baptist Church in San Francisco (another
Welcoming & Affirming Baptist
church) applied to become associated
with the American Baptist denomination.
Their application was never acted
on. Dolores Street Baptist has now withdrawn
its local application and has appealed
directly to the national
denomination.▼
Notes
1Gustav Niebuhr, “Baptists, Lutherans Expel
California Congregations that Embrace Homosexuals,”
The New York Times, 8 February
1996.
2Martha L. Olney, “Reflections on getting
‘dissed’,” Second Stone, January/February
1996.
3Kevin Mayhood, “Baptist church disenfranchised
over gay issue,” Columbus Dispatch,
7 June 1995.
Brenda J. Moulton is coordinator of the
Association of Welcoming & Affirming
Baptists.
By Brenda J. Moulton
Offer Prayers and Support
St. Francis Lutheran Church
152 Church Street
San Francisco, CA 94114
415/621-2635
Pastor James DeLange
First United Lutheran Church
6555 Geary Boulevard
San Francisco, CA 94121
415/751-8108
Pastor Jeff Johnson
Lakeshore Avenue Baptist Church
3534 Lakeshore Avenue
Oakland, CA 94610
510/893-2484
Rev. James H. Hopkins
First Baptist Church
2345 Channing Way
Berkeley, CA 94704
510/848-5838
Rev. Esther Hargis
San Leandro Community Church
1395 Bancroft Avenue
San Leandro, CA 95477
510/483-1811
Rev. Kay Wellington
New Community of Faith
6350 Rainbow Drive
San Jose, CA 95129
408/253-1408
Rev. Richard E. Taylor
Rev. Vikki Yechoyan, Associate
First Baptist Church
115 W. Broadway
Granville, OH 43023-1179
614/587-0336
Rev. George Williamson, Jr.
Dolores Street Baptist Church
938 Valencia
San Francisco, CA 94110
415/826-2641
Rev. Doug Donley
Spring 1996 19
Most current approaches to
church conflict management
are based on conceptions of
congregations as organizations and congregational
leadership as organizational
leadership. These conceptions have been
primarily shaped by human relations
theory. Such approaches are influenced
by a psychological understanding of relationships
within congregations, which
encourages confrontation of disagreements,
engages persons involved in a
conflict in direct interaction, and emphasizes
communication skills (self-disclosure,
assertiveness in expressing demands,
negotiation, compromise, and
collaboration). The use of such approaches
in Asian American congregations
has not been effective.
For Asians, society is not individualbased,
but relationship-based. This focus
is rooted in Confucianism, in which
human beings are expected to develop
and conduct themselves as “relation-oriented”
individuals. Accordingly, attitudes
that enable and sustain this relational
orientation are cultivated in the
Asian family and Asian community.
Three such attitudes or relational
postures are:
• continuous awareness of one’s
networks of relationships
• recognition of the importance of
“face” (public self-image) for
those with whom one is in relationship
• fulfillment of obligations to
maintain one’s relationships.
These attitudes and postures continue
to shape behavior, not just for
the immigrant Asian generation as
it arrives in this country, but for the
American-born generations as well—
even to the third and fourth generations.
They are predispositional in
nature—so influential that they are
perceived by some Asian Americans
as a sort of “cultural DNA”—not always
consciously present, but functionally
operative in predisposing
Asian Americans to a distinctive pos-
The predisposition toward preserving
relationships leads to the preference for
nonconfrontational interaction, e.g.,
subtle or indirect engagement, through
trusted third party “go-betweens” rather
than through professional mediators
who engage disputants in direct communication.
The predisposition toward preserving
relationships also enables the toleration
of ambiguity in times of disagreement.
Some Asian American congregations
have remained together in the midst of
their differences, deferring debate or
other direct, face-to-face efforts designed
to resolve the dispute. Some Asian
Americans have characterized such congregational
cohesion in the face of conflict
as “solidarity in conflict” in contrast
to the “unity in diversity”
emphasized in some mainline denominations.
This difference has theological
implications: how might a theology of
solidarity be different from a theology
of unity or a theology of reconciliation
in shaping our conflict ministry?1▼
Source
This material is excerpted from “From
Surgery to Acupuncture: An Alternative
Approach to Managing Church Conflict
from an Asian American Perspective.”
Reprinted by permission of Congregations,
published by The Alban Institute,
Inc. Suite 433 North, 4550 Montgomery
Ave., Bethesda MD 20814. Copyright
1996. All rights reserved.
Note
1The solidarity paradigm vs. unity paradigm
discussion originated with Dr. Kim
Yong Bock, president, Hanil Seminary
in Korea.
Virstan B.Y. Choy, D.Min., is director
of field education and integrative studies
and assistant
professor of ministry
at San Francisco
Theological
Seminary in San
Anselmo, California.
ture for engaging in interpersonal interaction
in the family, in the community,
and in the congregation. A cultural
collision occurs when persons acting out
of this posture are placed in conflict
management situations emphasizing
attention to one’s own feelings and calling
for expression and negotiation of
one’s own needs and interests.
In situations of conflict, the relational
orientation leads to a predisposition
toward preserving relationship with
those with whom one is involved in a
disagreement. Consequently, differences
and even disagreements may be allowed
to remain unresolved over a long period
of time in order to preserve the face
of others (“save face”) and therefore
maintain some form of relationship
(“save relationship”). In such situations,
what non-Asian American conflict managers
may perceive as passivity or inability
to make decisions may actually be
an intentional culturally shaped decision
not to engage in interactions that
threaten face or jeopardize relationships.
By Virstan B.Y. Choy
20 Open Hands
Finally, all we have is relationships.
We stew about what to do with institutions,
particularly what to do
about “the church.” Shall we challenge
it? Shall we nurture it? What really matters
are the relationships that build institutions,
are shaped by them, or exist
in spite of them. Are those relationships
mutually just and mutually loving? Do
they energize us in the Spirit and nurture
growth?
Recently, a fairy godbrother of mine
became a candidate for assistant pastor
at a suburban congregation in another
state. After the first interviews, he rocketed
to the top of the congregation’s
prospect list. Phone calls, letters, conversations—
all conveyed one message:
“You are the perfect candidate; the one
we want.” Then he came out to the senior
pastor. The senior pastor professed
his support—and proceeded to sink my
friend’s candidacy. The search committee
cut off communication, refused my
friend a hearing, and denied they ever
wanted him.
I was ready to pack my bags: sensibly
low heels, modest pearls. I wanted to
travel to that suburb, find that church,
march in on a Sunday morning in my
most middle-America-go-to-meetin’
dress. But to what purpose? Should I
go—or not?
What Would Jesus Do?
Which brings me to the question,
“What would Jesus do?” Would
he hike up his skirt, tear down the aisle
shrieking “my house shall be called a
house of prayer for all peoples,” and
overturn the In-Remembrance-of-Me
furniture? Or would he don a man’s
three-piece pin-stripe, lace on the oxfords,
and throw his fedora in the ring
for denominational moderator?
ings. But he interpreted them in ways
that made the establishment nervous.
Jesus lived in a society dominated
both by the Jerusalem Temple establishment
and by Roman territorial occupation.
Economic life was difficult. Bruce
Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh note that
between 35 and 40 percent of a peasant
family’s production may have gone to
religious and political taxes.1
Class, gender, and ethnic identities
dictated very limited options for individuals.
The social group one belonged
to defined the individual, not vice versa.
Men and women did not regularly mix
or socialize (thus the male disciple’s astonishment
when Jesus talked with a
woman—Jn 4:27). Patriarchal extended
families were the norm, reinforced by
economic necessity.
Physical life was difficult for both
women and men. Most people worked
hard. Disease and accidents limited life
expectancy, if one survived childhood,
to about forty. Jesus was past “middle
age” when he began his teaching. Medicine
was largely what we would call “folk
medicine” or spiritual healing. Jesus’
acquaintances were well-acquainted
with death and conditions that we consider
handicaps.
Thus, Jesus lived and spoke with a
spontaneous immediacy that I find disconcerting.
My generation had an extended
adolescence and years of college
to ponder the “meaning of life.” But
Jesus was an itinerant preacher, teaching
wisdom on the fly.
My predominantly European-American-
male-defined world puts great stock
in the theoretical underpinnings of social
structures. We rest our civic relationships
on constitutions and written
covenants. In church, we study “issues”
I was raised in the 1950s and 1960s
and I came of age in the 1970s. I grew
up hearing comparisons of Jeremiah’s
sermons with Martin Luther King, Jr.’s
speeches. Ezekiel’s “sit-ins” didn’t sound
all that different from student protests
(Ezek 4:1-8). And I quoted Jesus—“love
your enemies”—when I staffed the statefair
booth of Kansans Concerned About
Vietnam (Matt 5:43-44). So an anti-establishment
Jesus in drag suits my biases.
Unfortunately, Jesus is hardly that
simple.
Jesus confuses me. He declares peacemakers
blessed (Matt 5:9). He also suggests
that his disciples carry weapons (Lk
22:36). He longs for his people to “know
what makes for peace” (Lk 19:42). But
he characterizes himself as bringing “not
peace but a sword” and setting members
against one another (Matt 10:34-36).
Does he undermine the religious institutions?
Does he support them? Predominant
Western thinking demands
consistent thought and purpose. Jesus
seems to relish inconsistency. One day
he pays the temple tax without objection
(Matt 17:24-27). Another day finds
him turning the temple upside down
(Matt 21:12-13). Biblical pictures of Jesus
resist systematic ethical, political, or
theological organization. That may be
due, in part, to the world in which he
lived.
Jesus was Jewish by ethnic heritage
and religion. But cosmopolitan Galilean
Judaism may not have been fully respectable
to some groups which organized
Jewish identity according to ritual
purity. He appears to have been a peasant.
But his family identity included
royal descent from David. His teaching
appealed to sacred tradition and writ-
By John Linscheid
Spring 1996 21
and formulate “position papers.” We
focus on passing resolutions, changing
books of order, or revising manuals of
discipline. To change institutions, we
seek to change people’s minds.
Jesus seems unconcerned with
changing people’s minds. He doesn’t
argue issues. He addresses people and
responds to concrete events. His words
and actions modulate from situation to
situation—and sometimes even moment
to moment.
Such is the case in his encounter with
the Canaanite woman (Matt 15:21-28).
Her initial pleas for mercy for her sick
daughter fall on unresponsive ears. Jesus
appears to accept ethnic segregation,
declaring that his mercy belongs only
“to the house of Israel.” The woman
persists, and Jesus compounds the offense
with an ethnic insult: it would be
unfair to throw the “children’s bread”
to “dogs.” But she seizes the insult and
turns it back at him. Dogs, she reminds
Jesus, can expect more than he is willing
to give. In her single-minded devotion
to her daughter’s good, she forces
Jesus to perceive that ethnicity is no
boundary to faith. Jesus repents, and her
daughter is healed.
Jesus doesn’t retreat into defensive
posturing when the Canaanite woman
challenges his ethnocentrism. Instead,
he listens to her. He opens himself to be
transformed by her. What prompts him
to listen—and elsewhere to expect others
to listen to his challenges? Why does
he expect transformation (of himself or
others) where tradition and society say
none is possible?
The New Testament depicts Jesus as
extraordinarily in tune with the spiritual
possibilities in all things. In him,
no boundary exists between the holy
and the mundane. He trusts the Spirit/
God utterly. He lives his daily relationships
from the perspective of the Spirit/
the spiritual.
The earliest writings we have about
Jesus (the letters of Paul) present almost
no biographical information. Paul seems
relatively uninterested in stories about
Jesus—or even in his teachings. Yes, he
quotes “the Lord” occasionally. But what
seizes Paul, in his relationship to Christ,
is the quality of Spirit found there. The
quality of Spirit seems to be an energy
of relationship that binds people together
and makes people whole.
Paul doesn’t speculate on the metaphysical
nature of Christ’s resurrected
body. He simply describes his experience
that the gathered community of Christ
continues the reality of Christ’s earthly
life. In 1 Corinthians 11:23-27, Paul uses
“the body” as a double entendre to mean
both the gathered community and Jesus’
body. He proceeds to explain how each
movement and experience of any part
of the body affects all the others (1 Cor
12:12-27). Christ is not only a person.
Christ is also the relationship among
Christ’s followers.
To live in Christ, to follow Jesus,
means living our relationships in constant
spiritual communion. It means
spontaneously being shaped by the everrenewing,
ever-growing perspective of
the Spirit.
How Might Jesus Open
Himself?
So what does this have to do with
whether Jesus would wear a man’s
suit or a woman’s dress to the church
that rejected my fairy godbrother? It suggests
that I must not ask “What would
Jesus do?” Rather I must ask, “How
might Jesus open himself to relationships
with others and God in this moment?”
Will the dress and pearls help
to inspire new perspectives? Will the
business suit foster mutual growth?
Sometimes one must shatter old relationship
patterns to enable new growth.
Sometimes one must rest in the familiar
and retreat from upheaval. Anger and
insult may move with the Spirit, as when
Jesus pronounced woes upon stagnant,
oppressive traditionalists (Matt 23:13).
A softer answer may also teach, as when
Jesus refused to take sides in a legal dispute
(Lk 12:13-15).
Should one abide with church tradition
or challenge church structures?
I attend a congregation that has never
been able to make a gay/lesbian-affirming
statement. We do not all agree on
issues of sexuality. Our regional Mennonite
conference now threatens to expel
our congregation unless it excommunicates
gay and lesbian members.
Nevertheless, we continue to welcome
gay and lesbian members. Why do members
who cannot agree to affirm the
goodness of gay and lesbian relationships
embrace us and risk expulsion?
Why do I, an openly gay man, remain
where my sexuality is not always affirmed?
Although we do not fully agree,
we sense in each other a movement of
the Spirit that we trust. We perceive,
imperfect though it may be, the energy
of Christ’s body in our relationship. In
this mystery of Christ, I can say of certain
people—whether we fundamentally
disagree or agree about sexuality—that
I would trust my life to them.
If I were to wear the dress in this my
home congregation, it would be for fun
and joy and laughter and learning. But,
in some other congregations, I’d wear
the dress to be “in their face.” More
likely, I would shake the dust from the
soles of my pumps and leave before my
pearls were cast before swine. Just as we
must not divorce what God has joined,
sometimes we should not keep bound
what God long put asunder. Sometimes
mutual good comes in parting.
Right relationships—Spirit-ual relationships—
seek the good in one another.
They promote growth in each other.
They foster mutuality and justice between
us. They tune our interactions to
the energies of God.
We can stew about institutions. Shall
we leave the church? Shall we support
it? Shall we prophesy against it or work
to change it from within? Some must
leave. Others must stay. The sacred mystery
of living in Christ is this: to discover
and move toward the Spirit’s potential,
whatever the pattern of
relationship.▼
Note
1Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh, Social-
Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), p. 134.
John Linscheid and his lover, Ken White,
live in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. They
will lead a retreat on creating and using
ritual to face and move through the unique
challenges of gay-male
identity development
(16-18 August 1996).
For more information,
contact Kirkridge (see
ad on p. 31).
22 Open Hands
GUIDELINES FOR GROUP FORMATION
1. Communicate to approximately six persons each who are pro and con on the issue
of homosexuality in the church; invite them to pursue the topic in civil discourse
together.
2. Choose a competent conflict manager to facilitate the group.
3. Affirm basic ground rules, ideals, or guidelines to govern the actions of the group
toward civil discourse.
4. Spend the necessary time to allow all persons to share their life journeys relative to
the formation of their position on the topic.
5. Seek to find whatever common ground is evident out of the personal sharing.
6. Continue educational efforts individually and as a group on the subject of sexual
orientation.
7. Work toward a consensus decision on some common action to take, such as the
formation of new groups led or supported by original group members.
—Donald E. Bossart
Two of the most emotionally
charged issues in the church and
society today are the issues of
abortion and homosexuality. Many articles
have been written and debates
have been argued in an attempt to convince
one another of the rightness of
one side or the other. Biblical and theological
interpretations have been expounded
from church pulpits, public
debates, and print or TV media to justify
particular positions. The focus of
this article is on a way of living in the
tension of the conflict and engaging in
civil discourse on the subject of sexual
orientation. How can we choose to live
within the heat and seek the light?
What Does Civil Discourse
Mean?
Acknowledging that we are in a social
tension is easy to do. The hard
part comes when we decide that we must
engage in civil discourse. First of all,
what does that mean? Many have experienced
discourse on these topics but
little has been civil. Labeling, vehement
protest, and confrontation have characterized
much of the debate. Digression
into ugliness, personal attacks, and
property damage are sad components
to uncivil discourse.
Civil can mean two things. First, it
can mean that the debate is public
among those who live together in community.
Second, it can mean that the
debate gives respect to all parties. This
article is written to encourage both community
discourse and respect due to the
various parties. We who live within the
church community should have understanding
of the need for respect and
honor to be given to another of God’s
children, whom Jesus came to liberate
by his death and resurrection. But somehow
the church has great difficulty with
this theological tenet in the name of
“right doctrine” and belief. Civil conversation
breaks down when rightness
of position is paramount and any position
varying from that “rightness” is not
only wrong but heresy. What occurs is
church conflict with only win/lose outcomes.
Discourse has within its meaning a
dimension of dialogue between parties
which includes logic and reason. If logic
and reason are to occur, listening to all
positions is required so that understanding
might be achieved without agreement
being necessary.
A Typical Approach to the
Conflict
Sexuality has always been a matter of
serious concern charged with emotion
in the church. Lately, the church
has been embroiled in the topic of
sexual orientation, mostly concentrating
on whether homosexuality is a biblical
abomination or innate to the person.
Should one bearing the attribute of
“abomination” be ordained as a
clergyperson?
As in most emotional debates, the
parties tend to treat their opponents as
enemies who, in their evil ways, are trying
to eradicate morality in general and
biblical Christianity in particular or,
conversely, who are expressing unnecessary
fear over a valid part of God’s creation.
The debate is win/lose, with rightness
as the only criterion. The Bible and
doctrinal authority are the only arbiters
for the debate within part of the church
community. The approach is positional,
with little regard to dialogue, the relationship,
and shared interests with others.
Common ground and resolution are
most difficult to achieve in the midst of
this kind of atmosphere and entrenchment.
Civil Discourse: A New
Approach
An interest-based dialogue, rather
than a positional debate, is called
for. Civil discourse requires fair fighting
ground rules that focus on a dialogue
which is substantive and which
addresses each party in a civil, respectful
way. Understanding is a goal.
Distortion in perception, miscommunication,
and the drive for personal
or group power over others may well
require a third party facilitator to bring
the “civil” and the “discourse” into the
discussion. Such facilitators are trained
to intervene with fair fighting rules and
to move the debate from the ferocity of
win/lose to the excitement of a win/win
attempt toward understanding and possibly
resolving the conflict. Even when
complete resolution is not attainable,
the facilitator can help prevent damaging
exchanges that block future dealing
amongst the parties. Latent conflict
from previous win/lose interactions can
easily be triggered into highly emotional
escalation of conflict in future
exchanges
Third party facilitators engage in preventative
roles as well as those that are
mediative and negotiative. They assist
By Donald E. Bossart
Spring 1996 23
civil discourse by: 1) preventing damaging
exchanges, 2) enabling the change
of context of the conflict (reframing),
and 3) coaching parties in the principles
of fair fighting and ethical interchange.
Such behavior is essential to dialogic
discussion in order to reach a negotiable
perception of the problem. Mediation
by a third party can change a deadlocked
positional argument into an open
search for common ground around
common interests.1
An Experiment in Civil
Discourse
A positive experience in attempting
civil discourse by this method of
third party facilitation is taking place in
Denver, Colorado. The Colorado Coalition
for Choice is a group of religious
leaders in the community who are active
in community debate on the abortion
issue. Experiencing frustration at
the way these interchanges were going
and feeling more acrimony than any
helpful light on the matter, they felt
there must be another way. In the early
months of 1993, I was approached as a
conflict manager to see if I might facilitate
a group of approximately equal
numbers of pro-life and pro-choice persons
from within the Christian-Jewish
community. A number of months later
such a group of clergy and lay leadership
was gathered.
Each person was asked to commit to
a civil discourse on the abortion issue
without having to convince others to
change their position. The end goal of
such initiative was to identify some
common ground around which there
might be some united action.
My role as facilitator was to establish
and insure ground rules which respected
the worth and self-esteem of the persons
involved and to guide the group toward
the discovery of possible common
ground. Christian-Jewish tradition and
theology gave foundation for this style
of dialogue. The persons in the group
had been in the leadership of religious
concern on both sides of the abortion
issue to date. They had a genuine interest
in why and how each had come to
their position on abortion. They desired
mutual understanding and to see if there
was any ground in common!
Since we met only once a month, it
took some time to allow all individuals
to share their journey. This process drew
the group closer together as the life stories
and resulting commitments were
shared. At times many in the group
would exclaim that, given the life experience
they just heard, they too might
be so convinced. Trust and friendly relationships
were built before any attempt
was made to discover common
ground. Effort was extended to break
positional images, loaded words, labels,
and epitaphs. This development of community
and trust was enhanced by a
week-end retreat with leadership from
the Common Ground Network for Life
and Choice in Washington, D.C.
After mutual appreciation was developed
around life journeys and abortion
positions, the focus was directed toward
common concern. The problem of unwanted
children became the center of
dialogue. The experience of adoption
agencies in working with the parents of
unwanted babies and with unwed mothers
was shared. Ways of working with
pregnant women considering abortion
were discussed toward mutually desirable
ends. Any decision for action by the
group was dependent upon consensus
among all parties.
The persons who experienced this
progression from no trust and attack to
compassion and understanding over
about two years felt excitement about
their achievements and wanted to share
those insights with others. Since this
experiment had been a private, not a
public event, a news release was prepared
which described what had taken
place. An invitation was made for leadership
to come from this initial group
to help start new groups. About twelve
persons formed a workable group, with
balanced representation of the parties
to the dialogue. Their goal was to spread
this style of discourse across the Denver
metro community.
Using this Model
The substantive issue for civil discourse
in this article is sexual orientation,
not abortion. The process is the
point in the above description. How can
this process help us in the church to live
in the tension around sexual orientation?
The following ideals would need to
be affirmed by consensus by a new
group who wanted to engage in civil
discourse on sexual orientation:
∂ We agree that all human lives have
value and inherent dignity.
Σ We seek to be one in the spirit of caring
and compassion.
ΠWe will listen to each other with
open hearts and minds.
These then serve as guidelines for civil
discourse.
The mission statement of a group
seeking to engage in civil discourse on
sexual orientation would need to include:
∂ an affirmation of the right of persons
to hold different convictions.
Σ an agreement to seek not simply to
be understood but also to understand.
Πa commitment to attempt to look
beyond differences to see each other
as caring, compassionate people.
π a commitment to strive together toward
finding answers which uphold
the dignity of all human life.2
The general steps followed by the group
would be the same as our group in Denver.
They are outlined in the box (left).
The joint pursuit of truth may be long
and difficult, but civil discourse in the
midst of conflict within the Christian
community could be a contribution to
the search for peace that is so desired
on the part of the larger community. The
foundation for this discourse is within
us. Let us learn to use it and pass it on.▼
Notes
1Hugh F. Halverstadt, Managing Church Conflict
(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox,
1991).
2These are the ideals and mission statement
of the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice Community in
Denver, December, 1994.
Donald E. Bossart, Ph.D., is an associate
professor of interpersonal ministries at Iliff
School of Theology in
Denver, Colorado. He
has been active in the
Denver PFLAG and the
Colorado AIDS Project.
He and his wife, Gay,
attend St. Andrews
UMC in Littleton.
24 Open Hands
When a colleague of my wife
said this at the time I was to
be ordained, I knew she had
had little experience in the church! Now,
nearly forty years later, I am even more
certain that she sat on the margins of
the church. Little did I realize at the beginning
of my ministry that the church
would call me to be a bishop for more
than half of the coming years. Though
I experienced division in my ministry
in congregational and academic settings,
it was in the office of bishop, both
in a synodical and churchwide setting,
that I witnessed the full fury of conflict
among the people of God.
Given this history of ministry, one
would think that I would have grown
jaundiced and negative about the
church, depressed about the people of
God, and relieved to be free from the
office of bishop. That is emphatically
not the case. While I surely am delighted
to move into a new stage of life, I do so
with gratitude for the opportunities I
have had to serve in such interesting
roles in the church. And—to the point
of this article—I am thankful for the
good things that have come from times
of conflict and disagreement in the
church.
Recognition
The first key to dealing with conflict
is to recognize that it is inevitable
in any human situation. More so, it is
crucial to recognize that it takes on a
peculiar shape in the church. Let me
explain.
First, we are “at the same time justified
and sinner,” a notion that can be
interpreted both narrowly and more
broadly. In the narrow sense, we are
made right with God through God’s
work in the life, death, and resurrection
of Jesus Christ. We are “justified” by
grace through faith. Yet, we remain engaged
in the struggle with sin and evil
as long as we live. In the broader sense,
this struggle is played out in all of life.
A constant threat hangs over even the
finest, most ordered, most cooperative
human setting that it will be torn apart
by conflict and misunderstanding. That
is simply “the nature of the beast.” It is
a fact of human existence that will be
with us as long as the world stands.
When we move out of our naiveté and
recognize evil—both personal and corporate—
for what it is, we have taken the
first important step in resolving conflict.
Second, I suggest that conflict is more
subtle in the church. Persons like my
wife’s colleague think there should be
no conflict among people who claim to
be Christian. Those who plunge into the
life of the church soon discover that sin
and evil are not only prevalent, but that
they take on disguises that often make
them hard to detect. Christians can be
“terribly nice.” We can say the right
things, put on a kind and gentle face,
while, at the same time, giving free reign
to feelings of anger and hate. “I love
everyone,” we are inclined to say. But
our thoughts and actions often betray a
heart that is full of evil intent.
Dialogue
How do we deal with this condition?
The biblical way is open and honest
conversation, repentance when we
have done wrong, and a constant search
for deeper understanding of others.
The title of a very old book speaks of
the Miracle of Dialogue.1 Dialogue is what
I have seen work over and over again in
my near-forty years of ministry. A member
of my first parish took strong exception
to my stance on an issue in the
community. I could have attacked him,
directly or subtly, from the pulpit. I
could have talked behind his back. I
could have complained to the church
council. Instead, I went to his home. We
had a good, constructive conversation.
We acknowledged our differences. We
distinguished those differences from
more important elements of Christian
faith where we were in agreement. Out
of it has come respect for each other that
endures to this day.
I encountered the miracle of dialogue
as a synodical bishop when the issue of
civil rights for gay and lesbian persons
first surfaced in the mid-1970s. I took a
clear stance in favor of those rights and
in support of the gay and lesbian community.
The reaction was predictable.
My mail was full of hate messages. Some
pastors attacked me from their pulpits.
I could have answered in kind, both to
the letters and the sermons. Instead, I
chose the way of dialogue.
No, I did not win over those at either
extreme edge of that conflict—those who
resisted any change whatever and those
who demanded complete and immediate
change. But across the broad middle,
change occurred. I engaged in dialogue
with congregations where reaction was
most extreme. In some instances, a few
very courageous homosexual persons
went with me to present their case, to
tell their life stories, and to share in the
conversation. No, I did not see mass
“conversions.” But whenever a few
minds were changed or a few seeds of
new approach were planted, progress
was celebrated.
Dialogue happened again in the fall
of 1994 when the first draft of a possible
“statement on human sexuality”
was released by the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America. Because of the unfortunate
and inexcusable way in which
the document was first reported in the
press, the storm of reaction was volcanic.
My bishop’s desk was piled high
with more than 1,000 letters in a matter
of a few weeks—most of them in
strong opposition to what the writer
assumed was in the draft. That was only
the tip of the iceberg. Many more thousands
of letters came to the division responsible
for the draft. To this day I get
letters and comments suggesting how
By Herbert W. Chilstrom
2
1
Spring 1996 25
the eruption should have been handled.
Some gay and lesbian persons and their
friends hoped for a strong word of condemnation
against those who did not
agree with the suggestions in the draft
regarding how the church should look
on them. At the other extreme were
those who felt that a word of total condemnation
of the entire draft should
have come from my office.
I chose the way of dialogue. Together,
with key staff persons, I traveled to every
corner of the ELCA to engage in conversation
regarding this divisive issue. I
prepared a video tape for use in small
group settings. ELCA staff provided discussion
materials for use in local congregations.
Responses were encouraged
and flowed in by the tens of thousands!
Seldom has a church body been engaged
in such broad and deep conversation
about a single subject.
Did good come of it? Emphatically
yes! I cannot count the number of times
a pastor has said to me in the past two
years that, hard as it was at the time, the
dialogue opened doors of understanding
that surprised even the most skeptical.
Did the ELCA lose some members
over the issue? To be sure. But my mail
assured me that the church also gained
some members. Far more important,
however, was the sense of courage that
emerged in congregation after congregation.
“We will need some time to assimilate
this issue,” one pastor said to
me. “It was frightening at first. I thought
the congregation would be torn to
shreds. We discovered that there are
deep differences among us. But we survived.
Some minds were changed. More
than that, we learned that we can disagree
and still live together in community.”
Those comments would be echoed
over and over across the ELCA.
Patience
Progress in understanding is never as
swift as we might hope. But I have
learned patience over the years. Furthermore,
I must constantly remind myself
that on complex and divisive issues
change is always slow. It took twenty
years for me to move across the spectrum
of attitudes regarding homosexual
persons, from an assumption that such
persons are immoral by deliberate
choice to the conviction that they are
only different from the majority in regard
to their sexual orientation and in
no sense immoral because of something
they have not chosen. Like the minority
who are left-handed, they simply
have a different sexual preference.
The same is true for churches as corporate
bodies. Change will be slow. It
took the Quakers more than fifty years
to come out with a strong statement
against slavery! Further, we must come
to terms with the fact that while social
statements are desirable when the
church needs to address a serious issue
in society, they are not always possible.
At its 1995 Church-wide Assembly, the
ELCA delegates waffled between calling
for more work on a statement on human
sexuality and abandoning that
process in favor of a less legislative
approach. Discouraging as it is, the
message from those confusing and contradictory
actions was clear: the church
will need time.
Calls for patience are not appreciated,
especially if you are the one discriminated
against. You do not have two or
three lifetimes to wait for change. You
want it now. So do I. But, just as in the
secular realm where “the art of the possible”
is the way toward change, so is
the case in the church. We do what is
possible, never apologizing for our position,
but always ready to engage in
dialogue with those who differ with us.
William Willimon relates the story
of an encounter Martin Luther King, Jr.
had with a young man whose father
objected to his involvement in the civil
rights movement. The young man
wanted to know what King would suggest
as a way to change the heart of his
racist father. King replied, “Your father
is doing the best he can. He has not had
many of your educational opportunities,
opportunities which he provided
for you. As a Christian you must be patient
with him and love him.”2
King did not suggest that he stop talking
to his father, or abandon his support
for the movement. In a sense, at
the heart of his suggestion was the way
of nonviolent resistance—and the way
of dialogue. Persistent, informed, patient
dialogue in a loving context remains the
best way to resolve conflict and bring
change.▼
Notes
1Reuel L. Howe, The Miracle of Dialogue
(Greenwich, Conn.: Seabury, 1963).
2F. J. Schumacher, ed., For All the Saints.
(Oneonta: American Lutheran Publicity
Bureau, 1995), p. 54.
Herbert W. Chilstrom,
the first presiding
bishop of the ELCA
(1987-95), is now retired
with his wife
Corinne, a Lutheran
pastor, in Pelican Rapids,
Minnesota.
3
26 Open Hands
Inviting Moral Responses
We at Shalom Ministries understand
the reasons why people in
vulnerable positions feel they need to
hide. We have often counseled those
caught between the demands of integrity
and call to be gentle with themselves.
Nonetheless, we believe people
should be cautious about embracing an
ethic of subversion.
Subversion destroys trust. It invites
retaliation and retribution. Those who
exercise power to maintain systems of
injustice recognize resistance, name it,
and attack not only those who use it but
also all who are associated with the subversive
ones. They have laws, media, and
people at their command already crushing
subversive activities. To get different
results, a different approach is required.
We need to prepare spiritually to act
in ways that sow the trust that is essential
to building up, rather than breaking
down, community. The first step is
to appreciate the divine spark in ourselves
and in others, then to show respect
for others. We cultivate an understanding
that moral forces are of God
and have power over injustice. We walk
in the presence of God and ask God’s
help to calm our fears. When we meet
anger, we recognize that anger is often
a cover for fear. We assure those who
are angry that they need not fear surprise
attacks. We focus on the specific
injustice.
We appeal to those who maintain
systems of injustice to act in ways that
are moral and just. The appeal to do justice
invites people to reflect on their own
values. It encourages use of reason as
well as feeling. It raises issues about the
impact of personal actions on others. It
does not shame, but rather gives people
time to do the inner work that changes
minds, and celebrates those who do.
Spaces for Movement
It is difficult to be lesbian or gay and
in a church or synagogue, but changing
times have opened up surprising
spaces for movement. The walls of resistance
are not monolithic, but broken
and shifting. The changing times challenge
us all to use methods that build
our own spiritual maturity and nurture
trust in our communities. Hope grows
when we recognize God’s presence with
us. It increases when others stand with
us. We add to hope when we join with
people who are loving and justice-seeking.
It is important to think carefully
about the consequences of our ethical
choices. There are many cracks in the
walls of injustice. There are gaps and
spaces where justice-seeking people may
expand their reliance on God, let go of
fear, and persuade people in places of
power of the importance of doing what
is just. One at a time, people make these
decisions. Indeed, as the walls of injustices
become arches of invitation, we
may create a garden of peace by sowing
trust along the way.▼
Source
This article was originally published in Shalom
To You, the newsletter of Shalom Ministries,
in November 1995. Used with permission.
To receive Shalom To You, write P.O.
Box 66147, Portland, OR 97290.
Alice G. Knotts, Ph.D., an ordained United
Methodist pastor, is co-director with Jeanne
Knepper of Shalom
Ministries and the author
of a new book,
Fellowship of Love:
Methodist Women
Changing American
Racial Attitudes,
1920-1968.
Under Seige
Lesbians and gay men today are under
siege in churches and society.
Silent complicity or lack of sustained
opposition by many middle Americans
creates a climate in which discrimination
and violence are tolerated and perpetuated.
In response to this situation, some
lesbian or gay religious leaders counsel
subversion. They compare the present
day situation to that of Moses when the
Hebrew people were enslaved in Egypt
or of Dietrich Bonhoeffer when Hitler’s
Nazi party ruled Germany. Claiming
that extraordinary times call for extraordinary
measures, they argue that honesty
and integrity, valued principles in
ordinary times, may now be inappropriate.
A sophisticated and reasoned use of
scripture and Christian ethics, they
claim, may lead people to be subversive,
just as Moses’ mother defied Pharaoh by
letting her son live and Bonhoeffer plotted
to help assassinate Hitler. In a time
when the forces of injustice are both
powerful and treacherous, subversion
may be a commendable moral option.
The choice to use subversion in the
church relies on a conclusion that injustice
is so evenly and solidly distributed
that it can’t be cracked by an appeal
to higher principles. It assumes that
forces of injustice are stronger than the
powers of the ones who resist, that avenues
for application of ordinary virtues
and principles are closed, and that God
calls for actions that will allow the persecuted
ones to survive within the institution.
People use subversion when
they fear that the negative consequences
of not using it are great, when they feel
powerless, and when they hope to hold
on until the climate is safer. They make
a moral choice to apply the lesser of two
evils.
By Alice G. Knotts
Spring 1996 27
Soloist: (Sing verse 1) “Help us Accept Each Other”
Leader: One story, many versions. One story, many voices.
Some see danger and ever-present destruction.
Voice One: They killed the prophet and placed him in a tomb.
Hope has died and I feel lost.
All: I have spoken with this voice. Life can feel like an endless series
of meaningless disasters and mindless tragedies.
(At this point, group members are invited to shout aloud those recent events in their lives and communities that have felt
like disasters or tragedies. After each event is shouted, the soloist will strike a drum or the bottom of a cooking pot once.)
Leader: One story, many versions. One story, many voices.
Some see opportunity and the hope for new beginnings.
Voice Two: The prophet has risen from the dead!
Glory to God, for my world shall never be the same.
All: I have spoken with that voice as well. Life can be an endless spring
of promising possibilities and provocative chances.
(Group members are invited to shout aloud those recent events in their lives and communities that have felt like new
opportunities, new beginnings, or the promise of hope. After each event is shouted, the soloist will ring a handbell or shake
a tambourine for two seconds.)
Leader: One story, many versions. One story, many voices.
Can there be resurrection without death, new life without suffering,
promise without frustration?
Voice Three: God dwells with us in the midst of all pain and glory, all horror and joy.
As members of the body of Christ, we are called to live in the tensions of God’s world,
All: To sense God’s tears in the midst of our sufferings, and
to hear God’s cheers in the midst of our victories.
Leader: One story, many versions
Voice One: One story, many voices
Voice Two: There is pain and suffering
Voice Three: There is hope and promise
All: And there is the Spirit of Christ dwelling among us, holding us with the arms of Grace,
kissing us with the lips of peace, and standing beside us until the dawn of eternity.
Soloist (Sing verse 3) “Help Us Accept Each Other”
Note
“Help Us Accept Each Other,” The United Methodist Hymnal, #560, or obtain from Hope Publishing
Company, 800-323-1049.
David D. Otto is an associate professor of religion at Centenary College of Louisiana, where he
lives in the tensions of life with friends, students, and his two dogs, Guenevere and Suzette.
By David D. Otto
28 Open Hands
Selected
Resources interpretation, science, ordination, gay unions. With discussion
questions for group use.
Hahn, Cellia Allison. Sexual Paradox: Creative Tensions in our Lives
and in our Congregations. Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1991. Explores
male-female differences and conflicts within churches related
to “authority and power as they work in tension with each
other.” (from book cover)
Halverstadt, Hugh F. Managing Church Conflict. Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox, 1991. Drawing on organizational
group process and examining theological/ethical issues surrounding
conflict, author advocates a Christian vision of shalom
and an ethical process of respect, assertiveness, accountability,
and focus on the common good. (from book cover)
Carey, John J., ed. The Sexuality Debate in North American Churches,
1988-1995: Controversies, Unresolved Issues, Future Prospects.
Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen, 1995. Not a “pro” and “con”
book, but rather reflections of leaders involved in the sexuality
debate who have been engaged in re-thinking assumptions
about Christian life and ethics and the role of churches in
society.
Leas, Speed. Leadership & Conflict. Nashville: Abingdon, 1982. A
standard in the field.
McCollough, Charles R. Resolving Conflict with Justice and Peace.
New York: Pilgrim, 1991. Uses actual cases of conflict to illustrate
theoretical understandings of the nature of conflict and
resolution.
Rogers, Jack. Claiming the Center: Churches and Conflicting
Worldviews. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Combining
strong historical analysis with contemporary relevance,
Rogers challenges mainline Protestants to claim the
eccelsiatical, intellectual, and moral center of American Protestant
life. Deals directly with current conflicts on homosexuality.
Seifert, Harvey and Lois. When Christians Disagree. Educational
Ministries, 2861-C Saturn Street, Brea, CA 92621. An eight session
adult study on conflicts and decision making related to
world peace, economic justice, abortion, political freedom,
homosexuality, and preserving the earth.
Vayrynen, Raimo, ed. New Directions in Conflict Theory: Conflict
Resolution & Conflict Transformation. London: Sage, 1991. Looks
at world-wide political conflicts and proposes conflict transformation,
rather than conflict resolution (since most conflicts
are not resolvable).
Welch, D. Don. Conflicting Agendas: Personal Morality in Institutional
Settings. Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1994. When our personal
agendas conflict with institutional ones, an appropriate response
involves an ethic of “responsibility”—integrating our
own personal integrity with concern for the larger group.
Other Resources
Conciliation Quarterly. A newsletter. Mennonite Central Committee.
717/859-3889.
Conflict in the Church: Division or Diversity? 12 min. VHS. Focuses
on different styles of handling congregtaional conflict. Includes
study guide. $25 ppd. or free loan through Mennonite Central
Committee libraries. Mennonite Central Committee. 717/859-
3889.
Albrecht, Gloria. The Character of our Communities: Toward an
Ethic of Liberation for the Church. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995.
Rejects rugged American individualism, yet questions theological
thinkers like Stanley Hauerwas who emphasize the community
nature of Christian faith. Asks, how can communities
envisioned by Hauerwas ever be liberative for those on the
margins of society and church when the vision and story of
the faith is still in danger of being shaped by a one predominant
culture and worshipping community?
Avery, Michel, et. al. Building United Judgment: A Handbook for
Consensus Decision Making. Madison: Center for Conflict Resolution,
1981. Techniques and skills for effective consensus.
Baird, Robert M. and M. Katherine, eds. Homosexuality: Debating
the Issues. Amherst: Prometheus, 1995. A wide range of essays
grouped into five areas: the philosophical debate, explanations
and causes, criminal law, military, and religion. Writers address
all sides of the controversy.
Bossart, Donald E. Creative Conflict in Religious Education and
Church Administration. Birmingham: Religious Education Press,
1980. Focuses on idea of creative possibilities inherent in conflicts
and on processes to call forth the creative and productive
potential in conflict.
Brash, Alan A. Facing our Differences: The Churches and their Gay
and Lesbian Members. Risk Book Series. Geneva, Switzerland:
World Council of Churches Publications, 1995. A Presbyterian
minister from New Zealand, who was deputy general secretary
of the WCC from 1974-78, notes that the ecumenical community
has been reluctant to address the debates over homosexuality.
This book, which grew out of efforts of the WCC
staff to gain a better understanding, seeks to encourage dialogue
among the churches precisely at the point where “sharply
contradictory convictions divide them.”
Cosgrove, Charles H. and Dennis D. Hatfield. Church Conflict:
The Hidden Systems Behind the Fights. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994.
Uses an analogy of church as a family. Identifies through real
stories and examples the hidden structural boundaries and
“familylike” rules operating within churches.
Friedmann, I.M. Helping Resolve Conflict: True Experiences of a
Christian Anthropologist. Peace and Justice Series. Scottdale, PA:
Herald, 1990. Through true stories of conflicts and mediation,
this peacemaker shares his growth and insights on reconciliation
processes. Questions with each chapter facilitate group
discussion.
Geis, Sally B. and Donald E. Messer, eds. Caught in the Crossfire:
Helping Christians Debate Homosexuality. Nashville, Abingdon,
1994. Offers a range of views on “hot” issues such as biblical
Spring 1996 29
More Churches Declare Welcoming Stance
Brown Memorial Park Avenue Church
Baltimore, Maryland
Located in the central city of Baltimore since 1869, Brown
Memorial’s 200-plus members are committed to ministry to
the city through BUILD, an industrial development ministry.
A sister parish in El Salvador has been visited by many of its
members. Rev. Roger Gench reports that the decision to affiliate
with the More Light movement was the last step in a six
year process of active engagement with issues of sexuality and
ordination. While deeply committed to an inclusive church,
some within the congregation were reluctant to “join the movement.”
Roger Gench says, “We came to see that this was an
important next step.”
First United Church of Oak Park
Oak Park, Illinois
In harmony with its long history of socially relevant ministry,
First United Church of Oak Park voted to become a More
Light Church and an Open and Affirming Congregation. The
statements adopted by the congregation include an endorsement
of holy unions. For many years the Mission Board of the
1180-member congregation has provided financial backing to
a local AIDS ministry in Oak Park and to a number of national
groups committed to an inclusive church.
St. John the Evangelist United Methodist/
Presbyterian Church
Columbia, Maryland
Worshipping in an Inter-Faith Center, this congregation of
approximately 450 members shares space with Lutherans, Roman
Catholics, and Baptists. Calling itself “multicultural,” this
suburban congregation attracts people searching for community.
The unanimous vote of its council to become a More
Light Church and a Reconciling Congregation was an outgrowth
of the congregation’s long history of openness to diversity.
Central Congregational Church
Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts
A city church with 45 members and a small Sunday School,
Central Church wants to be a growing congregation that meets
the needs of people in its neighborhood and beyond. Autumn
brings much activity with the Fall Fair and a community concert,
featuring a performance by (and group “Power Sing” with)
folk singer, Nick Page. The staff of this ONA church includes a
part-time associate pastor who is openly lesbian and a seminarian
who is openly gay.
First Congregational Church
San Rafael, California
Situated near the Golden Gate Bridge, this active 60-member
congregation is committed to being broadly inclusive. It is
undertaking a major building remodeling project to make its
facility more accessible, attractive, and useful. The church hopes
to raise $250,000 for needed changes in its building and an
additional “tithe” of that amount ($25,000) for mission. Members
of the church are involved in a variety of ministries, including
delivering meals to persons with AIDS. Since becoming
ONA, the congregation has welcomed several gay persons
into membership.
First Congregational Church
Corvallis, Oregon
The 300 members of this semi-rural, active community of
faith had just completed its stewardship drive when an unexpected
expense was generated by a roof fire! While responding
to that situation, the congregation continues its many
ministries, especially for youth and children. In March 1996
youth traveled to Oregon’s Warm Springs Reservation to work
on tribal housing and church renovation. In two years they
plan to go to British Columbia. The church provides space for
300 people to attend the community’s Harvey Milk Awards
Dinner and continues to explore other ways to express its ONA
commitment.
Klamath Falls Congregational UCC
Klamath Falls, Oregon
The 40 members and friends of this church seek “to listen
and share in an open exploration of faith both within and
beyond our covenant community.” Their outreach includes
hosting the town’s “Coalition for Human Dignity,” helping to
develop the Klamath Interfaith Network, and sponsoring
“Preach Outs” where area ministers preach about and discuss
social issues. In response to the needs of some of its
neighborhood’s Hispanic residents, the congregation is establishing
a multicultural tutorial program for children and adults.
MORE LIGHT
OPEN AND AFFIRMING
Movement News
30 Open Hands
To help raise funds for its many ministries, the church will
have a booth at the Business and Professional Women’s Bazaar
where they will sell their famous aebleskiver—Danish spherical
pancakes!
Nazareth UCC
Chicago, Illinois
A friendly little church in a big city, this 130-member congregation
is diverse, growing, and excited about its future!
Centered in lively worship, the church’s life encourages indepth
caring among its members and meaningful outreach
into community. The congregation, listed as Open and Affirming
in the spring of 1995, continues to explore ways to live out
its commitment “to recognize every person’s unique God-given
gifts and be open to and affirming of all...” including people
of all sexual orientations. Members are active in the United
Church Coalition for Lesbian/Gay Concerns and the AIDS Pastoral
Care Network.
Presbyterian-New England Congregational Church
Saratoga Springs, New York
Situated in a very conservative section of the country, members
of this church reflect a wide spectrum of political and
theological thought. In addition to worship and Bible study,
the congregation hosts a soup kitchen, makes bimonthly food
deliveries to people in need in the county, and participates in
disaster relief work camps, including one in Appalachia and
one in Puerto Rico. Members’ travels have also taken them to
East and West Germany to help tear down the Berlin Wall.
Youth in the church enjoy wilderness canoe trips and rock
climbing. As a joint ONA and More Light church, this faith
community continues contact with other congregations exploring
the “welcoming movement.”
United Christian Church
Levittown, Pennsylvania
This 100-member congregation (UCC and Disciples of
Christ) in the suburbs of Philadelphia is characterized by its
strong history of peace and justice involvement and an open,
celebrative style of worship. The congregation is providing leadership
in the religious community for those mobilizing against
recent federal government cutbacks and similar state policies.
It is active in voter registration. After forty-two years of worshipping
in a “multi-purpose room,” the congregation is considering
a recommendation to build a sanctuary.
Augustana Lutheran Church
Phoenix, Arizona
When Augustana passed the affirmation of welcome, it became
a testimonial to the power of perseverance. This urban
congregation in downtown Phoenix first considered the RIC
process ten years ago and tabled the discussion because it was
too controversial. A persistent member kept bringing the subject
back up every few years. The vote was tabled several more
times. Finally, Augustana agreed to have a vote ten years after
the process began and the vote was positive. After a long wait,
Augustana became the first Lutheran church in Arizona to
publicly welcome gay and lesbian members.
Trinity Lutheran Church
Lansdale, Pennsylvania
Trinity, an historic church of well over 5100 members in
suburban Philadelphia, is perhaps the largest congregation of
any denomination ever to adopt an affirmation of welcome to
gay and lesbian Christians. This outreach-oriented church has
established many specialized ministries to serve its diverse
membership. Members of the congregation learned of the RIC
program at a Lutherans Concerned meeting and brought the
idea back to the church for consideration and eventual approval.
First United Methodist Church
Los Gatos, California
First UMC of Los Gatos, with 700 members, became a Reconciling
Congregation in April 1995. Opportunities for spiritual
growth include adult education classes, small groups, and
service in the community. The congregation’s growing music
ministry includes four choirs and occasional concerts. Children
are nurtured in an active Sunday School, children’s choir,
and many special events. A health ministries program provides
educational events, support groups, and visitation. Fellowship
happens at ethnic dinners, summer barbecues and Sunday
brunches, Gathering of Men, and other social groups.
Foundry United Methodist Church
Washington, D.C.
Foundry, one of the oldest and most influential churches
in the nation’s capitol, was organized in 1814 with seed money
from Henry Foxhall who owned a foundry in Georgetown. He
established the church as an expression of his gratitude that
his foundry was spared when the British attacked Washington
during the War of 1812. The church has been at its present
location—a mile north of the White House for ninety years.
Foundry’s 1400 members participate in a wide array of education
programs and fourteen mission groups addressing needs
of homeless persons, refugees, persons with HIV/AIDs, prisoners,
and other persons. The congregation also sponsors a
preschool serving inner-city children. While the decision to
designate itself an RC was made in October 1995, the church
has been a welcoming congregation for years.
RECONCILED IN CHRIST
RECONCILING
Spring 1996 31
Good Samaritan United Methodist Church
Edina, Minnesota
Good Samaritan, a church of 1000 members in the suburban
community of Edina, is a congregation of mostly young
families. A large Sunday School program is part of an extensive
ministry with children and youth. The music program
includes several choirs. Good Samaritan is recognized as a “socially
conscious” church and supports several urban ministries,
primarily with children. The congregation’s board voted
unanimously be become an RC in April 1995.
Temple United Methodist Church
San Francisco, California
An urban congregation of 325 members, Temple was formed
by the joining together of four different congregations in the
early 1950s. As a racially diverse congregation with persons
from many nationalities, part of Temple’s ministry has become
to train persons for ministry around the world. A contemporary
and a more traditional worship service are offered each
week. Small groups and Stephen Ministries offer opportunities
for spiritual growth. An active music ministry includes
bell, children’s, and adult choirs. The congregation houses a
Headstart program and a Korean congregation. Several other
community groups have offices or utilize meeting space in
the building. After several years of study, Temple became an
RC in June 1995.
A Shower of Stoles from a Cloud of
Witnesses
A new Presbyterian project, Shower of Stoles, aims to recognize
gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons who
serve the church faithfully as ministers, elders, deacons, seminarians,
musicians, teachers, youth leaders, mission volunteers,
and a host of other roles. The stole collection, which already
numbers over 100, was unveiled at the September 1995 meeting
of Heartland Presbytery in Kansas City. It will be displayed
again at the More Light Churches Network conference in May
1996 and worn and displayed throughout the General Assembly
of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in Albuquerque in July
as a constant reminder to commissioners and guests of the
host of gifts that are being denied by the denomination.
Send stoles to: Martha Juillerat/Tammy Lindahl, 6146 Locust
Street, Kansas City, MO 64110. If you cannot make your
own, send a minimum donation of $5.00 and one will be made
for you. Straight allies may send names for inclusion on an
allies’ stole or a church may send one allies’ stole with signatures
on it. Donations are encouraged to help cover cost of
mailings and transportation of the display. Checks: to Martha
Juillerat.
Victory for More Light Movement
In 1992 the Presbytery of Cincinnati established an Administrative
Commission to correct the inclusive policy (ordination
of gays and lesbians as elders and deacons) of the Session
of the Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church. In January 1996
the Commission reported that Mount Auburn is a “vital, growing,
and unified congregation,” and held that no action should
be taken against the congregation until the General Assembly
of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) resolves “the constitutional
discrepancies” which are apparent in its policy that gay and
lesbian persons cannot be ordained. Upon hearing the report
of the Commission, the Presbytery voted to dismiss it. No action
was taken against Mount Auburn, a significant victory for
the More Light movement and the struggle to change denominational
policy preventing ordination of gay men and
lesbians.
WELCOMING CHURCH LISTS AVAILABLE
The complete ecumenical list of welcoming churches is
printed in the winter issue of Open Hands each year. For a
more up-to-date list of your particular denomination, contact
the appropriate program listed on page 3.
Groundbreaking Curriculum Underway
Claiming the Promise, a new ecumenical welcoming Bible
study is being produced by the Reconciling Congregation Program,
with sponsorship from eight additional denominational
programs. The seven-session adult curriculum, available in the
fall, will include a study book and leader’s guide. Sponsors
include the Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists,
Dignity (Roman Catholic), Integrity (Episcopal), More Light
Churches Network (Presbyterian, U.S.A.), Open and Affirming
Program of UCCL/GC (United Church of Christ), Reconciled
in Christ Program of Lutherans Concerned (ELCA), Open &
Affirming Program of GLAD (Disciples), and Supportive Congregations
Network of the Brethren/Mennonite Council.
KIRKRIDGE
Gay, Lesbian, and
Christian: Our Treasure
John McNeill
Virginia Mollenkott
LaPaula Turner
Scott Anderson
Robert Raines
June 6-9
Gay Male Rights of
Passage: Moving Beyond
Coming Out to Being Out
Ken White
John Linscheid
August 16-18
We host a wide variety of workshops
and have space for personal retreats--
please inquire!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
KIRKRIDGE
Bangor, PA 18013
(610) 588-1793
a beautiful mountain retreat center 85
miles from NYC and Philadelphia
32 Open Hands
If you would like to write an article, contact Editor, RCP, 3801 N. Keeler, Chicago, IL 60641
Articles, personal stories, and poetry needed for theme on living in the “wilderness” on the
growing edges of the welcoming movement. Wilderness is any place or situation of relative
isolation from the network of welcoming churches. It may be reflected geographically,
racially/culturally, in denial of call and alternate ministry, etc. Oasis in wilderness
themes are welcome; e.g., your church offering an oasis of some kind in the midst of a
broader wilderness related to gays and lesbians in the church.
Write or call with idea: July 1 Manuscript deadline: October 1
Call for Articles
for Winter 1997
Voices in the Wilderness
The First
National Gathering
of
Welcoming & Affirming Baptists
August 16 – 18, 1996 — Evanston, Illinois
Sharing and Celebrating our Common Mission
through
Workshops, Forums, Worship, Resources
Keynote Address: Peggy and Tony Campolo
For more information contact:
The Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists
P.O Box 2596, Attleboro Falls, MA 02763-0894
Phone & fax: 508/226-1945 e-mail: WABaptists@aol.com
A Unique Resource on
Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual
Concerns in the Church for
Christian Education • Personal Reading
Research Projects • Worship Resources
Ministry & Outreach
Published by the Reconciling Congregation
Program in conjunction with More
Light, Open and Affirming, Reconciled in
Christ, and Welcoming & Affirming Baptist
Programs.
Upcoming Gatherings
3-5 May. More Light Conference, “Dance the Dream of Freedom.”
Rochester, NY. Contact: Carolyn Klinge, 716/436-1078.
28-30 June. Supportive Congregations Network Gathering, “Dancing
at the Table: Reimagining the Church.” North Manchester, IN.
Contact: Jim Sauder, 612/305-0315.
30 June-3 July. United Church of Christ Lesbian/Gay Concerns
Gathering, “Pluralism and Power.” Cambridge, MA. Contact: 800/
653-0799.
11-14 July. Lutherans Concerned Assembly, Berkeley. CA. Contact:
Bob Gibeling, 404/266-2730.
16-18 August. Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists
Gathering. See ad.
18-20 October. National Affirmation Fall Gathering, “Building/Exploring
a Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual Theology of Liberation.” New York
City. Contact: National Affirmation, P.O. Box 1021, Evanston, IL
60204.
RCP’s Open the Doors Campaign
Converged on Denver
Widespread excitement built as United Methodists
across the country clearly called the
church to “open its doors” to all people regardless
of sexual orientation. As Open Hands went
to press in mid-March, over 5000 persons had
enrolled as Reconciling United Methodists
with a goal of 9600 before General Conference in Denver, 16-
26 April 1996. Witness in Denver included: a press conference
on 18 April where gay and lesbian laypersons and their families
shared stories of pain and exclusion; a musical, “Caught in
the Middle,” written by Jean Hodges of Boulder and Julian Rush
of Denver; a special Open the Doors worship service with Dr.
Tex Sample of St. Paul School of Theology as preacher; an Open
the Doors Rally for youth, college students, and seminarians;
special skits and surprise witness events; and a hospitality/education
center. It’s not too late to enroll as a Reconciling United
Methodist. Plans are evolving for follow-up meetings in September.
Contact the RCP office at 312/736-5526. It’s time to
Open the Doors!
❑ Send me Open Hands ($20/year; outside U.S.A. @ $25).
❑ Send Open Hands gift subscription(s) to the name(s) attached.
❑ Send list of available back issues.
Enclosed is my payment of $ ____________ OR
Charge $ ____________ to my VISA MASTERCARD (Circle one)
# _______________________________________________ Expiration _____/_____.
Name on Card _________________________________________________________
Signature _____________________________________________________________
My Name _____________________________________________________________
Address ______________________________________________________________
City/State/Zip __________________________________________________________
Daytime Phone (______) _____________________
Local Church __________________________________________________________
Denomination __________________________________________________________
Send to: Open Hands, 3801 N. Keeler Avenue, Chicago, IL 60641
Phone: 312/736-5526 Fax: 312/736-5475