Open Hands Vol 2 No 1 - Our Churches' Policies

Open Hands Vol 2 No 1 - Our Churches' Policies

2

1

1986

Summer

1t!J11
your"ea rl Irue -10 m y "earl al --I Inune If 0 youn __ ___ ';Jf il iI, give m e 90ur "and:· 2 ';]("ingJ 10:15 Vo'-2, ~o_1 ~ummer10S0
'iJour al 01 t"e~concilingCongregation~ogram
~
The Reconciling Congregation Program is a network of United Methodist local churches who publicly affirm their ministry with the whole family of God and who welcome lesbians and gay men into their community. In this network Reconciling Congregations find strength and support as they strive to overcome the divisions caused by prejudice and homophobia in our church and in our society. These congregations strive to offer the hope that the church can be a reconciled community.
To enable local churches to engage in these ministries, the program provides resource materials, including Open Hands. Enablers are available locally to assist a congregation which is seeking to become a Reconciling Congregation.
Information about the program can be obtained by writing:
Reconciling Congregation'
Program
P.O. Box 24213
Nashville, TN 37202
Open Hands (formerly Manna for the Journey) is published by Affirmation: United Methodists for Lesbian/Gay Concerns. Inc., as a resource for the Reconciling Congregation Program. It seeks to address concerns of lesbians and gay men as they relate to the ministry of the church.
Contributing to This Issue: Jeanne Barnett Bob Moon Mark Bowman John Moor Joanne Brown Julie Morrissey Nancy Carter Beth Richardson Morris Floyd Ben Roe Merrill Follansbee Bradley Rymph Mary Gaddis Eric Schuman Rick Husky Jeffrey Snyder Bill Johnson Randy Kimler Graphic anis!: Gene Leggett Brenda Roth
Open Hands (formerly Manna tor the Journey) is published four times a year. Subscription is $1 0 for four issues. Single copies are available for $3 each. Permission to reprint is granted upon request. Repnnts of certain articles are available as indicated in the issue. Subscriptions and correspondence should be sent to:
Open Hands
PO. Box 23636
Washington. D.C. 20026
Copyright 1986 by Affirmation: United Methodists for Lesbian/Gay Concerns. Inc.
ISSN 0888-8833
IPJII
~our"earl true
-fo m'l "eart al ,,,i,.,e il to 1l0ufJ/. ... ';J.f it ii, give me 'lour "a,.,d:'
: ';](i"'OI "':1;
TJournal of fl.Je~concilingCongregation ~ogram
Contents
Just two decades ago, few (if any) Christian denominations had formal policies related to homosexuality. Any church law was, in essence, informal and unwritten.
Clearly, that is no longer the case. The United Methodist Church and other denominations have adopted ordinances and statements of principles covering a variety of subjects of specific concern to gay men and lesbians. In this issue of Open Hands, we examine some of these policies and the theological questions behind them.
Morris Floyd opens our discussion with "The Need for a Coherent Theology ofSexuality" (p. 5 ). Floyd puts these church policy questions in their broader context, arguing that institutional Christendom's difficulty in being inclusive of gay men and lesbians stems largely from its discomfort with dealing with sexuality in general.
The United Methodist Church has adopted several statements and policies related to the role that lesbians and gay men are welcome to play as its members. John V. Moore discusses this history and specifics of ordination policy in "Struggle for Justice: Ordination in the UMC" (p. 10). Robert W. Moon, in "Contradiction Codified: The UM Social Principles" (p. 7), and Nancy Carter, in "Ignorance vs. Education: The UM Funding Ban" (p. 8), discuss other important actions of recent General Conferences. I n "Spiritual Gifts Lost" (p. 6), Ben Roe recounts the cost to the church in lost human talents caused by these policies.
Perhaps the central issue among these church policies is whether gay men and lesbians should have the same ordination opportunities as other church members. Drawing on personal experience, four authors discuss varying aspects of this question: Richard E. Husky, in "Baptismal Covenant Broken" (p. 19); F. Gene Leggett, in "Whose Life Is Disrupted?" (p. 20); Jeff Snyder, in "The Cost ofthe Closet" (p. 21); and an anonymous lesbian, in "Responding to God's Call" (p. 23).
Other denominations face challenges similar to those within the United Methodist Church. In "Journeys in Other Denominations," other churches' struggles to be inclusive of gay men and lesbians are noted: Unitarian Universalist, Eric Schuman (p. 12); Episcopalian, Randolph B. Kimler (p. 14); Presbyterian, Merrill M. Follansbee (p. 15); and United Church ofChrist, William Johnson (p. 16)
Elsewhere in this issue, SUSTAINING THE SPIRIT (p.18) presents "Affirming Our Ministries, " a responsive reading originally compiled for the commissioning of Affirmation leaders and adapted for Open Hands by Julie Morrissey. RESOURCES (p. 24) offers opportunities for further study and reflection on the theme of the issue. The RCP REPORT (p. 3) offers news of interest to readers.
We present this issue in a spirit of reconciliation and love, daring to hope that our vision of the church as a Christian community encompassing the diversity of God's glorious creation will continue to unfold.
2/0pen Hands
OUR NEW NAME! With this issue we begin publishing under our new name, Open Hands. This is not indicative of any changes in content or style with Mannafor the Journey-just a change in name. As we announced with an insert . in our last issue, our legal use of the ti tle M anna for the Journey was challenged last fall by the United Methodist Renewal Services Fellowship (UMRSF), a charismatic group in the UMC. The UMRSF has a federal trademark on the title of its newsletter, Manna , and requested that we change our title, contending that the two publications were likely to be confused. Believing that such confusion was unlikely because ofour different audiences and different full titles, we felt we-had reasonable grounds to obtain a federal trademark on Manna for the Journey. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, however, disagreed and denied our trademark application this spring. Rather than pursue our case through appeal, we have decided to change our name. The image of Open Hands is derived from John Wesley's sermon "The Cathoic Spirit." The text for that sermon is from II Kings 10: 15: And when he [Jehu] departed
thinking. Wesley concludes by stating that a person of "catholic spirit" is one whose heart is enlarged toward all mankind, those he knows and those he does not; he embraces with strong and cordial affection neighbors and strangers, friends and enemies.* We find this image to be particularly meaningful for the Reconciling Congregation Program and this journal. As women and men of faith, we lay claim to the promise of the church as the inclusive Body of Christ. On behalf of those who have been cast out by the institutional church, we extend our hands to those who remain inside the ecclesiastical structures and those who are now without, welcoming them to our common bond of love in Jesus Christ. Hands joined together span divisions and brokenness, even if they do not erase them. It is through God's saving and liberating grace that we can say "Is your heart true to my heart as mine is to yours? . . . Ifit is, give me your hand." On a practical note, be assured that subscriptions and correspondence can be addressed to either Open Hands or Manna for the Journey for the next several months as we complete this transition.
Crescent Heights performs a ministry to the community through the use of its facilities. Groups which use the building include lesbian/gay Alcoholics Anonymous and Overeaters Anonymous groups, a mental health support group, AIDS support groups, and the Coalition for Economic Survival. Crescent Heights has also made its sanctuary available for memorial services for those who have died from AIDS. SI. Paul's Supports Julian Rush St. Paul's UMC (Denver) publicly declared its support for one of its pastors, Julian Rush, in the latest round of challenges to Rush's appointment as an openly gay pastor. Rush is appointed to St. Paul's and to the Colorado AIDS Project. I n response to formal charges filed against Rush by other pastors in the Rocky Mountain Annual Conference, several laypersons at St. Paul's drafted a statement ofsupport. This statement was approved by the congregation's Administrative Council on March 30, 1986, and signed by 45 members of the congregation (the text of the statement is below). The statement was subsequently printed in the annual conference's newsfrom
there, he met Jehonadab the son of Rechab coming to
*The exclusively masculine language is retained from Wesley:~ writing but is intended to include
paper. After
grievances
against
Rush
meet
him;
and
he
greeted
all persons.
were filed in July 1985, the investigahim,
and said to him, "Is your
tion ran into an obstacle-there was
heart true to my heart as mine is to yoursT And Jehonadab answered, "It is." Jehu said, "If
Welcome to a New Reconciling Congregation
no established definition of what constituted a "self-avowed, practicing homosexual." (This term was
it is, give me your hand."
Crescent Heights UMC of West
used in the 1984 General Conference
(RSV)
Hollywood, California, recently belegislation
prohibiting
the
ordinaWesley's
interpretation
of
this
came the 16th Reconciling Congretion
and appointment of openly gay
passage states first that Jehu is not
gation and the first located in southand
lesbian clergy in the UMC.)
inquiring ifthe two ofthem are ofthe
ern California.
A
special
committee
was
apsame
opinion or worship in a similar
Crescent Heights was formed in
pointed by the annual conference to
fash ion. Instead, the question simply
1914. Located in an "urban village,"
define
and
apply
the
term.
At
a
is, "Is thy heart right with God?
..
the neighborhood is comprised priJanuary
executive
session
of
the
Dost thou believe in the Lord Jesus
marily of Old World Russian Jews
annual
conference,
the
definition
Christ?
.. Is thy faith filled with the
and lesbians and gay men. Crescent
was presented and approved. It read:
energy of love? . .. Is thy heart right
Heights is currently the only main"
A self-avowed, practicing homosextoward
thy neighborT According to
line Protestant church in this neighual
is a person who engages in, and
Wesley, the statement "give me your
borhood. A large number of the conopenly
acknowledges, genital sexual
hand" is a bond of faith and love and
gregation's 60 members are lesbians
behavior with a person or persons of
does not convey a unity of belief and
or gay men.
(continued)
Open Hands/3
the same sex." Under this definition, the proceedings against Rush were discontinued.
Three pastors in the annual conference then filed formal charges that Rush is gay and, thus, disobeying church law. St. Paul's letter of support was in response to this continued "harassment" and asked that the charges be dropped and the process of reconciliation begun.
The letter said:
The undersigned members of St. Paul's United Methodist Church of Denver and the Administrative Council are taking this means to attempt to reconcile differences of opinion relating to charges being brought a second time against the Rev. Julian Rush and, therefore, St. Paul's.
This charge by the Revs. J.L. Penfold, Eaton; Ed Bigler, Peetz; and Edward R. Rousset. Mancos, seems to us to be harassment and interferes with our ministry. We feel these charges are being encouraged by a group outside the Rocky Mountain Conference who have no concept of the ministry of St. Paul's UMC and other similar places and we respectfully, prayerfully, and in the spirit of love and reconciliation, request it to cease and desist. We invite other United Methodist members and congregations to join us in this request.
St. Paul's United Methodist Church of Denver is growing at a time when other churches are losing members and when the entire church is being requested to double its membership. We are an all-inclusive, reconciling congregation ministering to the people of Capitol Hill in Denver. The church has experienced refreshing new life with new people addressing the needs ofthe city's homeless and the chronically mentally ill; the state's farm crisis; Central America's civil strife; Mexico's earthquake; Cheyenne's flood as well as addressing the needs of the congregation. St. Paul's has paid full apportionments in support of the Rocky Mountain Conference
• and the connectional system of the United Methodist Church. United Methodists and non-United Methodists continue to join and members refuse to drop out of the church in spite of actions advocated by specific vocal groups encouraging rejection and isolation. We invite the Reverends Penfold, Bigler and Rousset. and any others who are willing, to visit St. Paul's and worship with us. [The congregational Covenant appears here.] The vast majority of the group who wrote this covenant are heterosexual members of St. Paul's. The lay ministry of St. Paul's United Methodist Church of Denver feel we are all in ministry whether ordained or not. We believe Julian Rush is an example of ministry in this present age of reformation based on love.
People have been afraid of tuberculosis, polio, cancer and now AIDS. The change in thinking has come about thanks to persons like Julian and many Colorado AIDS Project volunteers who attend St. Paul's who have been called to serve an unpopular position in the face of extreme adversity today.
We, St. Paul's United Methodist Church of Denver members and Administrative Council, sincerely hope and pray for reconciliation in this matter.
Wisconsin Annual Conference Commends RCP
The Wisconsin Annual Conference, meeting in late May, approved a resolution in support of the Reconciling Congregation Program. The resolution stipulated that information on the program be sent to every congregation in a conference mailing and the Reconciling Ministries Committee of the conference Board ofGlobal Ministries include the program in its work.
More information on this resolution and happenings in other United Methodist annual conferences will appear in the next issue.
Affirmation Meeting Brings
Developments for the RCP
The annual spring meeting of Affirmation: United Methodists for Lesbian/Gay Concerns was held in Seattle in April. Portions of the meeting were held in each of that city's Reconciling Congregations (Wallingford and Capitol Hill). Among the decisions made at the meeting were several concerning the Reconciling Congregation Program.
Specifically, a decision was made to hold a national Reconciling Congregations event in the spring of 1987. The event would bring together representatives of the Reconciling Congregations, members ofprospective congregations, resource persons from the gay/lesbian community, and observers from annual conferences and the national boards and agencies. The event will provide an opportunity for networking among local congregations, visioning for the RCP, and witnessing to the national church about the important mInIstries that Reconciling Congregations perform.
Reconciling Congregations will be consulted in the planning of the event. Others who wish more information should contact the Reconciling Congregation Program, P.O. Box 24213, Nashville, TN 37202.
News From Reconciling Congregations
-Bethany (San Francisco) celebrated lesbian/gay pride with a car in the Freedom Day parade, complete with their pastor in a clerical collar.
-Capitol Hill (Seattle) marched in the Gay Pride parade and distributed bookmarks describing their ministry as a Reconciling Congregation.
-Crescent Heights (West Hollywood) houses the Triangle Project, which identifies and supports lesbian and gay couples wanting to be foster parents.
-Edgehill (Nashville) recently began a Luke 14: 12 program. On Tuesdays and Fridays, 50-100 people are served lunch in the church building.
-University (Madison) engaged in a corn-picking ministry this past winter. When late fall rains and an early snow kept farmers from using machinery to pick the corn crop, several southern Wisconsin churches organized groups to work in the fields picking corn by hand. Members of University spent several weekends picking corn.
Also, University's Administrative Council recently approved performing "holy unions" for lesbian or gay couples in their church. In addition, the worship committee drafted a sample worship service to be used.
4/0pen Hands
The Need for a
COHERENT
Morris Floyd is a member of the California-Pacific Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church. Floyd lives in Minneapolis and is one of the official spokespersons for Affirmation: United Methodists for Lesbian/Gay Concerns.
The presence of lesbians and gay men in the church is not new. Policy issues resulting from that presence, however, have been on the United Methodist agenda and that of
other denominations for a relatively short timeroughly since the famous Stonewall riots in 1969.
Since 1972, the basis of the UMC's position has been its Social Principles statement. That statement affirms the dignity and worth of "homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons;" acknowledges their need for "the ministry and guidance of the church;" and calls for the assurance of their human and civil rights. Nevertheless, the statement adds, "we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching."
Theology
of Sexuality By Morris Floyd
The "incompatibility clause" set the stage for later prohibitions against "the use of national church funds for gay/lesbian groups or in ways that "promote the acceptance" of homosexuality; and the ordination or appointment of "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals." It maintains a dualistic understanding of personality and a genital focus in matters of human sexuality.
This dualistic understanding can be seen in the moral distinction the policy makes between homosexual orientation and same-sex activity. The argument usually goes something like this: Homosexual orientation may be regrettable but is not to be condemned. However, the behavioral expression of that orientation, which is under the control ofthe individual, is not acceptable. It is a variation on the theme "love the sinner; hate the sin." Furthermore, since homosexual "practice" is seen primarily in terms of genital activity, genital behavior defines what it means to be a "practicing" lesbian or gay man.
This dualistic approach to human experience and the obsessive focus on genital behavior is not limited to the church's response to homosexuality. At least vestiges of these shortcomings can be observed in traditional Christian approaches to nonmarital sexual expression, birth control, and abortion. These problems result, in large part, from our failure to have developed a coherent theology of sexuality. The Wesleyan approach requires that theology be informed by scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.
United Methodist policy with respect to homosexuality lacks theological coherence because it is consistent neither with what is known about homosexuality from medical and social sciences nor with the biblical view of humankind. For more than 10 years, it has been the scientific consensus that a same-s~ orientation is neither chosen nor pathological. On this basis, sexual orientation is seen as one or more ofthose categories in which people differ. Based on a selectively literal reading of a few verses in the Bible, a viscerally negative reaction to gay/lesbian sexuality, a lack of information about gay and lesbian persons, or some combination of these factors, many church people ignore the scientific consensus.
This allows them to deny the biblical view of persons as whole creatures called to be responsible stewards ofall the gifts they have been given, including their sexuality. Gay and lesbian persons are urged to isolate themselves from their sexual nature, deny its goodness, and suppress genital expression. This urging reflects and reinforces the naive notion that sexuality is only expressed in genital ways. Like persons who are heterosexual, lesbians and gay men express their sexuality in many ways, even if they never have a genital sexual interaction with another person. The church, however, is interested only in what they do with certain body orga ns.
Developing a coherent theology of sexuality is important not only for its own sake and for what it will enable in terms of a more just policy regarding lesbians and gay men in the church. It is important also because of what it will mean for the ministry of the church to the whole human community and with respect to lesbians and gay men in particular.
There are few areas of our lives where people have greater need for support than in dealing with concerns related to their sexuality. Heterosexuals, like lesbians and gay men,
experience a powerful link between their approach to their sexuality and their own sense of self-identity and self-worth. Uncertainties and guilts in this important area limit persons' abilities to hear or fully respond to the Gospel ofJesus Christ. The church can give neither effective guidance nor a useful pastoral approach with respect to these concerns while its resources are limited to the narrow and unbiblical approach illustrated by its present response to persons who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
Open Hands/5
Spiritual
Gi
Tonight I cried. I grieved the loss to my church of the spiritual gifts of one of God's children.
My church had no room for my friend,
because he is different. My friend joined another church where he is openly wanted, welcomed, appreciated, and understood.
Ifmy church had been open, we could have heard of his struggle of over 30 years to be included and his uniqueness affirmed. Time after time, church after church up to his teens, he was branded different. One Lutheran minister in an attempt to "heal" the differentness singled him out for special Bible study classes.
Ifmy church had been willing to listen, we would have heard of his long-time, little-expressed dream of being a minister. We would have heard of his deep appreciation for God's little creations: the bugs, the flowers, the plants, the rocks. We could have heard him call the plants by their scientific names.
But my church is afraid of him. He looks a little different, acts a little different, believes a little different. We can't imagine God's love including his differentness in God's plan. You see, my friend openly affirms his sexuality-his gay sexuality.
In one United Methodist church, more recently, my friend was sitting in church with his wife (yes, homosexual people do marry) and heard the minister talk about how homosexuality is a danger to families. My friend, in order to retain his hard-won sense of dignity and composure, got up and left.
We understand ourselves as one of the most inclusive and pluralistic denominations. Yet for the last 14 years we have debated heatedly whether those who are attracted to persons of the same sex can be included-not only in United Methodism, but in Christianity! Our Social Principles now insist, for example, that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Our statement on the ministry now says that self-avowed, practicing homosexuals are not to be admitted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve.
The spiritual gifts of many gay, lesbian, and bisexual men and women are lost to almost all churches because we in those churches are unwilling to listen. We are unwilling to learn about the full range of human sexuality, which includes homosexuality and bisexuality. We shut our ears by not listening to those who knock at our doors in their writings. We shut our ears by not attending educational events. We shut our hearts by denying funds to any endeavor which might even sound like it might promote the acceptance of any sexuality different from our own. The spiritual path of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people can have a significance that could enrich us all. But because we don't listen, we miss
Ben
Roe is a United Methodist minister. pastoral counselor, edu and executive director of Ministry in Human Sexuality. a counseling,
By Ben Roe
education, and advocacy agency in Lincoln, NE.
some of the depth of our common spiritual journey, and our church is the poorer for it.
Ifmy church, the United Methodist Church, had been willing to listen, we could have heard of my friend's latest journey to affirm his sexuality fully in the context of his spiritual journey. He has finally been able to celebrate his maleness, his combination of femininity and masculinity, and his gayness. He has found a new appreciation of his body which had long been a source of confusion and pain. We could have heard of my friend's growing understanding of his spirituality and his longing for communion with God. We would have heard his joy at finding God and a new wholeness in spirit, mind, and body. But we weren't open to hear.
Someday I hope this church that has given me my hopes and dreams, my faith perspective, the undergirding to my spirituality-someday I hope my church which has the possibility of being one of the most balanced spiritual and justice-seeking churchessomeday I hope my church will open up eyes to see, ears to hear, and hearts to love, and perhaps even seek out those gay, lesbian and bisexual persons who so long ago went out of the church when they "came out" in the church.
The joy I find in my grief is that at last my friend is finally fully a part of the body of Christ, which transcends all our human denominations.
This editorial was first published in the January 1986 issue of The Nebraska Messenger and is used by permission.
6/ 0pen Hand~
The United Methodist Social Principles say:
'We recognize that sexuality is a good
gift of God, and we believe persons may be
By Robert W. Moon
f ully human only when that gift is acknowledged and affinned by themselves, the
CONTRADICTION
Church, and society. We call all persons to disciplines that lead to the fulfillment of
CODI.IEDI
themselves, others and society in the stewardship ofthis gift. we encourage the medical, theological, and humanistic disciplines to combine in a determined effort to underT
he UM Social Principles
stand human sexuality more completely. "Homosexual persons no less than
heterosex ual persons are individuals of
The story on legislation affecting the declaration about homosexuality in the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church is quickly told: There has been no change since 1972.
sacred worth, who need the ministry and guidance ofthe Ch urch in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care ofa fellowship which
During a period when attitudes toward homosexuality were becoming more flexible in many parts of society, the official position of the United Methodist Church has held rigidly to the words" . . . incompatible
enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. Further we insist that all persons are entitled to have their
with Christian teaching."
human and civil rights ensured, though we
This indicting phrase was added from the floor during the debate in the General Conference of 1972. Though attempts to remove these words have been made every four years since 1972, the document remains
do not condone the practice ofhomosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. ,. The Book of
unchanged. We can hope for changes. Through the centuries we have witnessed significant changes in Christian
Discipline, p.90, par. 71 F, ''Human Sexuality. ")
teachings.
Take the teachings about divorce, for example. The
early position of the church banning divorce was
This Social Principles statement was adopted at the
prompted by the words attributed to Jesus. Though
1972 General Conference of the United Methodist
Jesus was silent about homosexuality, his words about
Church. The last phrase" .. . though we do not condone
divorce are clear and unequivocal (Mark 10: 11 ft). Today
the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice
the official statements and the practice of many denomincompatible
with Christian teaching" was added as an
inations are accepting toward divorced persons.
amendment to the statement from the floor of the conAgain,
Christian teachings about racism and slavery
ference and was adopted.
have changed through the centuries. So have the
The original statement as proposed was an affirming
teachings about participating in war.
statement, which understood and accepted our human
Given the fact that Jesus neve r addressed the subject
diversity in sexuality as a good gift of God. The
of homosexuality, and given our greatly enriched
" .. . incompatible with Christian teaching" amendment
understanding of the nature of sexuality today, it is
was an abrupt contrast to that original statement.
reasonable to expect a change in Christian teaching
here. Since the incompassionate rigidity prompted by the words "incompatible with Christian teaching" has been
The Social Principles are neither church law nor rules in any binding sense. They are statements of
so costly in pain and anguish and fractured community,
social conscience of the church on subjects of concern.
we must do all we can to see that this change does not
They have varied greatly over the history of the United
take centuries to be accomplished.
Methodist Church and will vary during the coming
years. Because the Social Principles speak to issues of
Rohert W Moon. a United Methodist minister, was on the platform at General Conference in 1972 making the presentation fo r the majority report at the time the amendment was made.
today for each time in the life of the church, this statement today reflects the contradictory views held by individuals within the United Methodist Church.
Open Hands/ 7
By Nancy Carter
Nancy Caner is chairperson ofthe Administrative Council of Washington Square UMC (N<*' York), a Reconciling Congregation, where she has been a member since 1977.
During the closing hours of the 1976 General Conference, when the rules had been changed to suspend debate, repressive new legislation was added to The Book ofDiscipline. In what is now known as paragraph 906.12* the conference gave the General Council on Finance and Administration the responsibility
for ensuring that no board, agency, committee, commission, or council shall give United Methodist funds to any "gay" caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality. The council shall have the right to stop such expenditures.
The same General Conference refused to authorize a national church study of human sexuality and only by a slim majority voted to authorize voluntary sexuality study efforts by local churches, for which resources would be provided.
By adding paragraph 906.12 without adequately discussing it and before conducting any serious study of human sexuality, that General Conference was, in effect, preferring ignorance to education and thus endorsing the continuation of public prejudice. The legislation was seen by many as a weapon not only to stop education about sexuality and gay/lesbian people but also to exclude gay/lesbian persons from various aspects of church life.
Early I nterpretations of Paragraph 906.12
Paragraph 906.12 was invoked many times in the first quadrennium of its enforcement as people tried to determine its implications. One of the first impacts of the new clause was to stop the minimal funding that had been going to groups that could be labeled "gay," such as the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC), a predominantly (but not exclusively) gay/lesbian denomination, and to prevent future funding of such groups.
The new disciplinary clause was also quickly used to try to control educational materials and events, with any "positive" information about gay/lesbian people considered by some to be against the Discipline if it received national denomination funds:
• An article in The Christian Home about Rick Husky, "One of Our Family is Gay," in its May 1977 issue, was attacked by Charles Keysor, top staff person
*The original numbering in 1976 was 906. 13; I use the 1984 numbering throughout.
8/0pen Hands
of Good News, a conservative UMC caucus. Keysor charged that the article violated paragraph 906.12 because "Homosexuality is not declared to be wrongthe only wrong which this article declares is the narrowminded attitude of the church which will not ordain homosexuals. "
•
The United Methodist Reporter, in its February 2, 1979, issue, attacked the General Board of Discipleship (BOD) for producing a packet on homosexuality as part of the local church study approved by the General Conference. The-[newspaper charged that the packet "promoted" homosexuality, and, as a result, the packet was altered, including the removal of a "pro-gay" pamphlet published by the Gay Activists' Alliance.
•
Still in turbulence from firing Joan Clark in 1979 after she came out as a lesbian, the Women's Division of the General Board of Global Ministries sent three recommendations to the 1980 General Conference: deletion of paragraph 906.12, as well as deletion of the negative statement in the Social Principles (see article, p. 7) and adoption of the division's document on Human Sexuality for study (see RESOURCES, p. 24). Ruth Daugherty, the Women's Division president, said that the deletion of the two paragraphs would allow the UMC to study sexuality "with openness, clarity, and Christian charity." Afterward, Good News suggested that the study would violate the Discipline, as (it said) had the human sexuality workshops the division sponsored for its directors and staff after Clark was fired.
•
A 1977 educational conference, "Homosexuality
and the United Methodist Church," sponsored by
'Washington Square UMC in New York City and Gay United Methodists (now Affirmation) was even questioned. Unlike the BOD and the Women's Division, however, Washington Square could say that it was a local church carrying out the General Conference mandate to do study; no national denominational funds were involved. (This differentiation between national and nonnational funds became important; some people tried to use paragraph 906.12 to block local, district, and annual conference studies.)
Exclusion of Gay and Lesbian People
Paragraph 906.12 was also used to justify the exclusion
of gay and lesbian people in church-related
institutions. Had Joan Clark been retained, for instance,
some people were prepared to say her employment constituted
a violation because her salary came from
national church funds. This argument was never tested.
UMC seminaries became the major focus of exclusion,
particularly in relation to the ordination process.
Some persons argued that, since UMC seminaries
received national funds, they could not have gay or lesbian
students in their professional programs. The first
publicized case of exclusion was Garrett Evangelical
Seminary's dismissal of two United Methodist "selfavowed
homosexuals," James Mason and Terry Colbert,
in June 1978. A few months later, Iliff School of Theology
refused to admit Lucius Allen Grooms, a candidate
for ministry in the MCC denomination. In May 1979,
St. Paul School of Theology placed five students on probation
for distributing a pamphlet that seminary officials claimed could be interpreted as the school's approval of homosexuality.
New Directions in Interpretation
Paragraph 906.12 seems to be invoked less than it once was but continues to do damage. Fortunately, it has lost some of its initial power in the area of education. Last year, the paragraph was cited in an attempt to block a study on homophobia, sexism, and the church by the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women (COS ROW). In response, Sharon Howell, the COSROW president, drew a distinction between advocacy and education. "Advocacy is the predetermination of support. Education-which is what we are struggling with-is coming to a better understanding and knowledge of an issue. Advocacy doesn't always come from education. We are not dealing with homosexuality, but the fear of it and all the implications."
Analysis of the Issues
The serious ethical issues raised by the adoption of paragraph 906.12 have not been adequately analyzed. Implicitly, the paragraph supports homophobia and rejects reconciliation. It denies that "promotion of the acceptance of homosexuality" can be based on facts, truth, and Christian love. It assumes that advocacy for gay/lesbian people has no Christian basis and supports an uneducated viewpoint of gay men and lesbians.
Since national funds cannot go to "any 'gay' caucus or group"-and since that phrase has never been defined-important new work of parts of the United Methodist Church might be denied funding. Attempts could be made to use the paragraph to block funds for AIDS service groups, even though they help all persons with AIDS, not just gay men. A project gathering information about violence against lesbians and gay men might also be denied funds. The Reconciling Congregation Program might have trouble receiving funds, even though it is _essentially a network of individual UMC congregations across the country, not a gay/lesbian organization.
Ideally, paragraph 906.12 should be deleted at the next General Conference. The funding processes of agencies, which include guidelines, policy approval by directors, and financial disclosure, should be trusted to make decisions on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, however, it is much harder to take legislation out of the Discipline than to put it in.
Paragraph 906.12 was inserted into the Discipline at a time when distrust of denominational agencies was increasing. As often happens with distasteful actions, however, some unintentional good has also come from the legislation. One such result is that, after it was adopted, it helped prompt more grass-roots work on human sexuality to be done by local churches, districts, and annual conferences. In the long run, this examination may help lead to the dismantling of the very barriers that paragraph 906.12 was meant to reinforce.
Open Handsl9
ggle For Justice:
By John V. Moore
he sanctuary of Glide Memorial UMC inTsan Francisco was packed, more crowded than on Easter. My sermon that day 20 years ago carried the title "Church, Community, and
Homosexuality." The congregation was largely gay men and lesbians who had come specifically to hear what I had to say. After I called for deleting from the California code those statutes that dealt with private sexual acts between competent, consenting adults, news services reported my sermon as far away as New Zealand and Australia.
The sermon had stemmed from a consultation on "Religion and the Homosexual" sponsored by a foundation of the congregation in June 1964. The consultation had attempted to bridge the gulf between churches and the thousands of young lesbians and gay men living in San Francisco, many of whom had grown up in the church and some of whom were still active in it. Approximately an equal number of heterosexual persons and gay men and lesbians had participated in the event.
Two decades later, our concern is rightly with where the United Methodist Church is today in relation to the issue of ordination of gay men and lesbians and the larger issue of sexual orientation itself. Nevertheless, a sense of history can empower us for the continuing struggle for respect and justice for all persons. In 1965, issues related to lesbians and gay men were not even on the church's agenda. It simply had not occurred to the church that the issue needed addressing. Later, when the 1972 General Conference asserted that "the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teachings," it assumed that this was not only true of past and present teachings but of all Christian teaching in the future as well. The 1976 General Conference was the first to address the issue of homosexuality and ordination. There, at the meeting of the legislative Committee on the Ministry, opponents of any change in the church's official stance on homosexuality and ordination argued that the UMC already had a reliable process for examining the character of its ministers. During consideration of the matter, the committee asked two of us to prepare a draft making explicit the way the denomination dealt responsibly with matters of character. We hastily wrote an addition to a Book ofDiscipline footnote* on tobacco and beverage alcohol. By affirming the denomination's overall process of dealing with matters of clergy character, this footnote helped forestall any effort to expressly forbid the ordination of gay men and lesbians. The ordination issue was again on the General Conference agenda in 1980. The debate in committee and in
lO/Open Hands
· ·
Of,dIMtwn
John V Moore is pastor at First UMC, Sacramento. California. He has been a delegate to five General Conferences and was a member ofthe General Board ofChurch and Society from 1972 to 1980.
the plenary session centered on the same issues. The appeal to trust annual conferences to act responsibly in the matter of ordaining homosexuals carried the debate and prohibition was again defeated.
It was not long before it became clear that the concept of any lesbian or gay man seeking ordination or serving as pastor was intolerable to many United Methodists. When Bishop Melvin Wheatley of the Rocky Mountain Conference was vindicated by the UMC judicial system for his appointing a pastor who acknowledged his homosexual orientation, church members who opposed ordination of gay men and lesbians
began crying, "Let's resolve this issue once and for all!" In response, the 1984 General Conference first enacted a proposal calling for commitment of clergy to "fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness." After the Judicial Council ruled that "The addition of [those] words [did] not establish absolute requirements nor
affect the right to appointment of ministerial members in good standing," the conference also expressly prohibited the candidacy, ordination, or appointment of "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals."**
In November 1984, the Judicial Council ruled that the second action did not violate the UMC constitution. The council explained that: 1) the General Conference has legislative authority in such matters; 2) annual conferences are responsible for interpreting and implementing General Conference legislation; and 3) because the constitutional rights of clergy who belong to annual conferences must be respected, bishops cannot refuse to appoint individual clergy unless their annual conference has acted to rescind their membership. Now that the General Conference and the Judicial Council have both spoken, flexibility exists solely with the annual conferences in how they interpret the rules.
These conferences will have to define for themselves
(continued)
*The committee and the conference accepted thisfootnote with the understanding that it would be placed in The Book of Discipline. Despite this actiol7. the footnote was not prillled in the 1976 Discipline. It appeared. however. in the 1980 Discipline.
**This wording made it clear that. to be deniedordination or have one's ordination revoked. agay man or lesbian must be both "selJ-avol1'ed" and "practicing" When a delegate to the General Conference offered an amendl1lelllthat wouldhave deleted ·~5elf-avol1·ed. .. arguingthat the words weakened the language. his lIlotion was defeated by a show ofhands.
the
"self-avowed" and to decide whether single people
(either homosexual or heterosexual) who cannot in good
conscience affirm celibacy meet the law of the church.
In the past, annual conferences have variously interpreted
the Discipline. For example, when the pledge to
abstain from the use of tobacco and beverage alcohol
was the law of the church, it was rigorously enforced in
some sections of the country and ignored in others.
The 1984 pronouncements probably will be in the Discipline for a long time. Both the precedent of the church's hesitation to delete references to tobacco and beverage alcohol and the constancy of the Social Principles on "the practice of homosexuality" point to this likelihood. Still, it should always be remembered that little is immutable about Christian teachings or church policies.
The United Methodist Church is not likely to write blank checks for lifestyles. Still, an understanding of human sexuality and a feeling for fairness will push the church eventually to stop asking gay men and lesbians to deny or hide their identities or to remain celibate.
The final test will be in local congregations. In many ways, church law has been changing more rapidly than the hearts and minds of the people in the pews. When the day comes that church law affirms the ordination of qualified women and men regardless of sexual orientation, little will have been gained if the congregations resist their leadership. Effective pastoral leadership in a parish requires some degree of acceptance and support by the people. Given the current homophobia and conscientious objection of many church members, the most important task is to win the hearts and minds of the people. This means continuing on the educational frontier.
Iremember with feeling my own struggle 20 years ago as I prepared that sermon on "Church, Community, and Homosexuality." I didn't know if what I was going to say was right or wrong. I didn't know of any precedent. I read and reread the scriptures. I read contemporary literature. Two factors were most powerful. The first was coming to know and respect women and men whose sexual orientation was different from my own. The second was my gut feeling where the spirit of Christ was leading me. My sense of Jesus' acceptance and inclusiveness of people was decisive. Later I realized that I had been conditioned to feel and think about homosexuality in the same way I had been conditioned in matters of race and class and in issues related to women and men. I felt that, in preach-
United Methodist POLITY
Having developed in the same historical period, the polity and decision-making structure of the United Methodist Church (UMC) parallels that of the United States government. Both have three basic branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. The General Conference is the legislative body of the UMC The General Conference enacts church law governing all aspects of the denomination from the local congregation to national boards and agencies. This church law is printed as The Book ofDiscipline. The General Conference is the only body which can make statements on behalf of the whole UMC The only constraints on the General Conference are that it must act within bounds of the Constitution of the UMC The General Conference meets every four years and is comprised of approximately 1,000 representatives of the more than 100 annual conferences in the United States and overseas. The conference delegates are evenly divided between laypersons and clergy. The Annual Conference is the basic unit of United Methodism, formed along geographical lines. The annual conference is the body which ordains candidates for ministry and confers their membership into the annual conference. (Each UMC clergyperson is the member of an annual conference.) Representatives of each pastoral charge and all the clergy members of the annual conference gather once a year to hear reports and act on r commendations of the conference boards and agencies. The annual conference can adopt rules and regulations that are not in conflict with The Book of Discipline. The Council ofBishops, the UMC executive branch, oversees the ongoing life of the church, "all matters temporal and spiritual." Bishops are elected for lifetime terms and each serves as the presiding officer of an appointed annual conference or area. The bishop appoints all clergy members of the annual conference to their pastoral charges and nominates personnel for the general church boards and agencies. The judicial branch of United Methodism is the Judicial Council. The nine members of the Judicial Council are elected by the General Conference. The Judicial Council interprets church law and rules on whether legislation conforms to the Constitution of the UMC
ing that sermon, I was standing over against all that had conditioned me. It is in remembering where I was and the road I have traveled that enables me to identify with people who stand today where I stood 21 years ago. My change of mind and feelings did not come quickly.
The struggle for justice for women is ages long. Black Americans must still demand and work for justice after 400 years on this continent. The puhlic struggle for justice for lesbians and gay men in our society is not yet a generation old. I do not minimize the hidden pain and suffering of the centuries. My counsel is not "Patience!" It certainly is not "Wait!" My counsel is "Perservere with hope remembering that we have come this far by faith."
Open Hands/11
I
M ost of the articles in this issue look specifically at policies regarding lesbians and gay men within the United Methodist Church. In this section we explore more fully the situation in other denominations-Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Unitarian Universalist, and the United Church ofChrist. In identifying the divergent perceptions of and responses to lesbian and gay concerns within these denominations, an understanding of the nature of each denomination's polity and faith tradition is relevant. The polity-ordecision-making structure-of these denominations ranges from the decentralized locally autonomous Unitarian Universalist and United Church of Christ to the more centralized Presbyterian and Episcopalian denominations. (The United Methodist Church falls in the latter category.) In general, the mainline denominations giving more congregational autonomy have been less restrictive in their official policies toward lesbians and gay men, deferring such policies to the local church level. Denominations that have had to mold national policies to guide all congregations have generally opted for the path of least resistance-maintaining the status quo which excludes and alienates lesbians and gay men. Other factors in comparison are: the nature of biblical interpretation and degree ofbiblical authority inherent in the theological tradition; the existence or absence of a strong tradition for involvement in social justice concerns; the emphasis the denomination has historically placed on personal piety and morality; the degree ofhierarchy in the denominational structure and decision -making. The denominational lines dividing American Christians also extend to the various groups supporting and advocating lesbian and gay concerns. Little dialogue has occurred between these denominational support groups or caucuses over the years. Such dialogue and cooperative efforts may play a significant role in a reconciliation of the general church's ministry with its lesbian and gay constituency.
Eric Schuman is former president of the Prairie Star District of the Unitarian Universalist Association. Schuman is a physician's assistant and lives in Topeka. Kansas. He is active in the Unitarian Universalist Lesbian/ Gay Caucus.
My friend Charlie and I were driving home from the 1969 General
Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA). The denomination was embroiled in a black empowerment controversy. The upshot of it was that the church voted $500,000 to fund a black Unitarian Universalist organization called the Black Affairs Council organized to fight racism and promote community development projects. The controversy had nearly split the denomination.
As we drove Charlie and I were discussing what it meant to be gay and Unitarian Universalist. I made a preposterous hypothesis-what if the UUA were to fund an organization of gay UUs, give it a half million dollars to fight prejudice against homosexual persons, and call it the Gay Affairs Council?
Of course, we never got the half million dollars. But in 1970 a group of gay UUs began meeting, formed a caucus, and proposed to that year's General Assembly that the denomination take a stand condemning prejUdice against homosexual persons and calling on the denomination and its churches to end discrimination in employment practices against gay men and lesbians. As so often happens in emotionally charged debates over controversial issues, the opposition created a climate that was partly responsible for our success. A leading, outspoken minister from New York, a gubernatorial candidate with a record of commitment on other civil rights concerns, compared the proposed resolution to the advocacy of affirmative action for those practicing bestiality. As the story was related to me, following this speech, the proponents of the resolution closed debate, and the measure was adopted overwhelmingly.
During the next two years, the caucus members worked to develop another proposal to bring before the General Assembly, this time to establish a Unitarian Universalist "Office of Gay Affairs," which would be responsible for implementing the 1970 resolution by assigning a staff person at UUA headquarters. This Office of Gay Concerns was created in 1974.
In 1977, it was Anita Bryant's anti-gay "Save Our Children" campaign in Miami that was responsible for a resolution on a gay topic. The General Assembly called on "all Unitarian Universalists to use their efforts in stopping such biased persecution and intolerance."
While a significant number of lesbians and gay men had been graduated from the UUA's three seminaries, until 1980 no openly gay or lesbian person had been "settled" in a UUA pulpit, although at least a dozen gay persons served as parish ministers and were known to be homosexual. Both gay men and lesbians had the experience of candidating for parish positions while openly gay, being unable to find work, then returning to the "closet" (i.e., changing their written
12/ 0pen Hands
biographical material) and quickly thereafter landing a position.
How to address this problem? In typical UUA fashion, by passing a resolution, of course! So, in 1980, the General Assembly urged the churches to renew their commitment to end discrimination by "lending full assistance in the settlement ofqualified openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual religious leaders." The results: none. Openly gay men and lesbians continued to be frustrated in their efforts to find parish positions despite verbal and moral support from the Department of Ministry.
Interestingly, settled gay male ministers one by one began to come out in their churches. Although stirrings were plenty in their congregations, none was fired as a result. By 1983 five or six openly gay male ministers were serving congregations, but no open lesbians were. Only one man had candidated for a pulpit as openly gay and been hired.
It seemed that the problem of settlement could be addressed at the denominational level by conducting a workshop on homophobia in hiring for the "ministerial settlement representatives" who assisted congregations seeking the services of religious professionals. The then UUA vice president agreed to implement that idea, and the homophobia training workshop was held in February 1984 for ministerial settlement representatives from around the continent. Out of those meetings a new proposal to help openly gay/lesbian ministers in the settlement process was implemented, and the settlement representatives were sensitized to the challenge of the task they faced.
1984 marked the adoption of a "Services of Union" resolution at the General Assembly. This resolution had been rejected in 1982 and 1983, partly because it was competing with other resolutions of global importance for a place on the agenda, but also because many UUs (including lesbians and gay men) believed it was unnecessary because everyone knew that many UUA ministers commonly performed such services.
However, the resolution was important because of an incident in Washington, D.C. in 1981. A gay assistant minister had conducted a service of union for a lesbian couple in the church sanctuary. A fullpage picture of the ceremony had been published in a national periodical without the minister's knowledge. Some members of the congregation strongly objected, and a policy was adopted there which prohibited gay/lesbian services of union in the sanctuary and which permitted the assistant minister to perform them elsewhere only under the direct supervision of the senior minister. The assistant minister was subsequently fired, although the public reasons given by the church had nothing to do with the incident.
We worked hard for the passage of the Services of Union resolution because we felt it was important for the General Assembly to make a statement that supported the freedom of choice for ministers who chose to perform gay unions. When the resolution came to the floor, debate was extended to two hours. When the question was finally called, the resolution was overwhelminglyadopted.
The UUA supported the Office of Gay Concerns for 11 years. When Robert Wheatly retired as the director in 1985, after several years of service, it was recommended that $10,000 be given to the Lesbian/ Gay Caucus to fund its own programs and that the amount granted each year be decreased as the organization generated its own sources of income.
The denominational newspaper, the UU World, has become increasingly sensitive to gay-related issues over the past several years. The editor personally covered the winter 1984 gay/lesbian UU convocation. The November 1985 issue devoted nine articles to the topic of AIDS, which represented the most space ever given to a single subject in the paper's recent history.
Some gay men and lesbians continue to be alienated and deeply hurt by the church. Nevertheless, the church remains the place many of us will stay. We love it, and we hate it. We strive to make it more perfect, more loving, and to make it more closely represent the ideals we hold dear in our religious lives.
Open Hands/13
I
Ten years ago, at its General Convention in Minneapolis, the Episcopal Church went on record with its pastoral concern for homosexual persons and expressed its conviction that such persons are entitled to equal protection of the civil laws that apply to all other citizens. A resolution passed by the convention stated that "homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church." Another resolution not only said that they have equal rights under the law but called upon society to see that such protection is "provided in actuality." These two principles have been reaffirmed by each succeeding triennial General Convention of the church. Although stated and approved in resolution form for the first time in 1976, these principles actually grew out of a concern long felt by many persons across the denomination about human sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular. The Committee on Human Affairs and Health (CHAH) of the House of Bishops had been delving into the matter for several years. At that same General Convention, that committee presented another resolution calling for a churchwide study and dialogue in every diocese about human sexuality "as it pertains to various aspects of life, particularly living styles, employment, housing and education."
S ome dioceses did indeed engage in such study and dialogue, although not all. Many, including the Diocese of Los Angeles, appointed task forces for in-depth study, and those
Randolph B. Kimler is programs manager
for Cathedral Ministries in the Diocese of Los
Angeles, Episcopal Church in the U.SA.
task forces in turn held conferences or seminars for the rest of the diocese. There is no doubt that many church members' consciousness about sexuality was raised considerably as a result of these three years of study.
However, in some quarters, alarms were raised as well. In 1979 the General Convention was asked again by the CHAH to consider the matter of ordaining gay men and lesbians to the priesthood. A majority of the church was not ready to make a statement of its willingness to do that. However, in acting on the matter the Convention came up with an unusual resolution that for the first time specifically related homosexual celibacy to marital fidelity or heterosexual chastity outside marriage.
Reaffinning the traditional teaching of the church on "marriage, marital fidelity, and sexual chastity as the standard of Christian sexual morality," the resolution, passed by the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies, said that, "it is not appropriate for this church to ordain a practicing homosexual, or any person who is engaged in heterosexual relations outside marriage."
This resolution received a large opposition vote in the House of Bishops, and a group of 21 bishops signed a statement saying that they couid not in conscience abide by its restrictive wording.
A growing number of bishops subsequently found that 1979 resolution more restrictive than they would like for it to have been regarding the ordination of lesbians and gay men. However, at the
rI
1985 General Convention it became clear that the majority of the denomination is not willing yet to take a further step. A resolution that would have admitted homosexual persons to the process that could lead to ordination was defeated in the House of Deputies.
Meanwhile, the general pastoral concern of the church for gay persons has increased as the nation has faced the increasing problem of AIDS, first seen as a homosexual disease and later recognized as a health problem for all persons. The 1985 General Convention offered a forum for education, public awareness, and dialogue about AIDS.
The convention urged each diocese to establish a pastoral concern committee on homosexuality to foster better understanding, dispel myths and prejudices, provide pastoral support, and give life to the claim of gay men and lesbians upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral care of the church as established by the 1976 convention.
'l'.,e convention also spoke to .I. ~he tragic human suffering and loss of life in the AIDS
epidemic. It charged the church's Executive Council to develop special intercessory prayers and also programs of awareness, education, prevention, and identification and to fund those programs by March of this year. Also by resolution the convention repudiated all indiscriminate statements that condemn or reject AIDS patients and asked the presiding bishop to urge the president of the United States to provide long-term, substantial federal funding of research about the disease.
14/0pen Hands
e 1976 General Assembly
of the Presbyterian Church~Church (U.S.A.) was asked by the Presbytery of Western New York and by other presbyteries to give "definitive guidance" concerning the eligibility for ordination to the professional ministry of persons who openly acknowledge homosexual orientation and practice. In the Presbyterian system, ordination of local church elders and deacons is the responsibility of the local congregation and the ordination of ministers is the responsibility of the presbytery.
In response to these requests the 1976 General Assembly established a task force to make a two-year study of this question including such issues as concept of ordination, biblical background for the understanding of homosexuality, and psychological conclusions regarding homosexuality. The task force studied its mandate and prepared study materials for use by local congregations, presbyteries, and synods and also conducted hearings across the country to gain input into its report.
The report of the task force was sent to the 1978 General Assembly which then appointed a standing committee to review it and to make recommendations to the General Assembly. The report of the task force recommended ordination for gay men and lesbians who were qualified according to the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) The report also contained an extensive review of the various positions on the authority and interpretation of the Bible, psychological studies on homosexuality, recommendations on social justice
Merrill M. Follansbee is assistant pastor at Westminster Presbyterian Church in Sacramento. California. Mr. Follansbee is an outspoken activist for lesbian/gay rights and an active leader in Parents and Friends ofLesbians and Gays.
for gay men and lesbians, dialogue and ministry to and with gay men and lesbians, combatting homophobia, and a continuing study of the subject in local congregations, presbyteries, and synods.
The General Assembly adopted the report of the task force, with the exception of the recommendation in favor of ordination of gay men and lesbians as elders, deacons, and ministers. The assembly further diluted the message of the report by adding some words, including: "We do conclude that homosexuality is not God's wish for humanity." (See RESOURCES, p. 24, for information on obtaining a copy of the report.)
The report also recommended that the church continue to study the subject of homosexuality. The extent to which this had been done is disappointing. However, there are some developments that should be noted.
Gay men, lesbians, and others who support them have organized Presbyterians for Lesbians and Gay Concerns (PLGC). This group has chapters throughout the country, publishes resource materials, holds conferences, and has status as an affiliated organization within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). It seeks to have an impact on the denomi nation.
In response to a program InItiated by PLGC, several local congregations have become "More Light" churches and have taken a position ofwelcoming gay men and lesbians into their life, leadership, and ministry.
In response to overtures from presbyteries, two General Assemblies have requested the general church to provide study resources. A consultation on homophobia was held at Stony Point, New York, in October 1984. The report of this conference has been published and made available as a study resource to congregations, presbyteries, and synods. *
In Buffalo, New York, the Westminster Presbyterian Church (a More Light congregation), believing that the 1978 General Assembly exceeded its authority regarding ordination, notified the Presbytery of Western New York that it intended to ordain gay men and lesbians as elders and deacons in the local church. Agreeing with that congregation, the Presbytery of Western New York voted to approve this action. On appeal from some of the local churches in Western New York, the Synod of New England sustained the Presbytery and upheld the local church action. The General Assembly referred this appeal to its Permanent Judicial Commission. In January 1985, this commission announced its decision reversing the synod and the presbytery, thus upholding the 1978 General Assembly directive prohibiting such ordinations.
(continued)
*"Breaking th e Silence. Overcoming th e Fear: Homophobia Education" can be obtainedfrom the Program Agency. Presbyterian Church (USA.). 475 River<;ide Drive. Ne~v Yo rk. NY 10II5.
Open Hands/ 15
(presbyterian, continued)
'l'.,e struggle within this denomi.I. ~ation remains an emotional and intense one. It is part of the wider struggle for human dignity
In 1985, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ (UCC) overwhelmingly adopted a resolution calling on all congregations and agencies of the denomination to adopt a policy of openness to and affirmation of lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This vote was the result of several years' work to encourage more active dialogue on lesbian/gay concerns in local churches. This resolution has initiated an official denominational program for local churches to declare themselves "Open and Affirming," thus differing from the independent efforts of the More Light (Presbyterian), Reconciling Congregation (United Methodist), and Reconciled-inChrist (Lutheran) programs. Lesbian and gay issues came to the forefront in the UCC in 1972 when I was ordained as an openly gay minister by the Golden Gate Association of the UCC. The national and religious media coverage of that event resulted in a number of letters being sent to me. From those initial contacts the United Church Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Concerns (UCCL/ and freedom in our society. Many gay men and lesbians, desiring to combine their God-given sexuality with their commitment to Jesus Christ and the church, feel that they have been treated as lepers, and they have left the church. Some remain as members but are deeply
Dr. William Johnson, a UCC minister and certified sexologist, is founder of the United Church Coalition for Lesbian/Gay Concerns.
GC) was founded later that year.
Two coalition members were seated as nonvoting delegates to the 1973 General Synod, establishing UCCL/GC as a duly recognized "special interest group" within the denomination. Two years later the 1975 General Synod, by a vote of 546-135, adopted a major social policy Pronouncement on Civil Liberties without Discrimination Related to Affectional or Sexual Preference.
T wo other resolutions were also passed by the 1975 General Synod. One called on the UCC Office for Church Life and Leadership to provide nonjudgmental counseling resources and bibliographic materials on homosexuality. The other commissioned a human sexuality study by the UCC Board for Homeland Ministries.
The preliminary report of this study commission, including 18 specific programmatic recommendations, was accepted at the 1977 General Synod (see RESOURCES, wounded, as are their families. Many nongay members of the church see the church's treatment of homosexuals as a denial of the gospel. These issues will not go away-the struggle continues.
p. 24). Also, in response to Anita Bryant's campaign that revoked the anti-discrimination law in Dade County, Florida, the General Synod passed a resolution deploring the violation of the civil rights of gay and bisexual persons and the use of Scripture to generate hatred.
Concurrent with these policy statements on the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, the UCC was dealing with issues about internal church policy. In 1973, in response to my ordination the year before, the UCC's Executive Council (which acts when the biennial General Synod is not in session) had adopted a statement recommending that UCC associations, when considering a lesbian or gay candidate for ordination, give serious consideration to the position that "the issue of ordaining a gay man or lesbian should not be his or her homosexuality as such, but rather the candidate's total view of human sexuality and his or her understanding of the morality of its expression." Yet during the 1970s most associations ignored the Executive Council's recommendations.
In 1980, the Executive Council revised its Equal Employment
16/ 0pen Hands
Opportunity (EEO) policy adding "sexual preference" to the list of bases of nondiscrimination. In 1981, the EEO policy was amended again with "sexual preference" being changed to "sexual orientation."
Ten years of education and advocacy of lesbian/gay concerns within the UCC culminated in the actions of the 1983 and 1985 General Synods. The 1983 synod overwhelmingly adopted a resolution on institutionalized homophobia which "denounce[d] institutionalized expressions of homophobia in all its forms and call[ed] upon all levels of the UCC to expose, to address, and in light of the gospel, to transform institutionalized homophobia, eliminating its effects within the church."
Other resolutions adopted by the 1983 General Synod: 1) called on the Board for Homeland Ministries to include lesbian/gay concerns in its family life programs and resources; 2) recommended election of open lesbians and gay men to association church and ministry committees, which review the standing of ministers and approve candidates for ordination; and 3) addressed a number of issues related to the AIDS crisis.
Also in 1983, the final report of the Task Force for the Study of Human Sexuality, commissioned in 1975, was presented with significant recommendations. The first of these called on UCC churches to work to end racial and sexual violence against women, children, people of color, and lesbians and gay men. The second ofthese called on the Board for Homeland Ministries to hire new staff to gather resources and to facilitate local church ministries to lesbians, gay men, and their families. Finally related to employment and ordination, the task force recommended that the General Synod recommend to associations that "in considering a candidate's qualifications for ministry, a candidate's heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual orientation, in and of itself, should not be grounds for denying the request for ordination." It also recomended that the General Synod advocate support of "nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation within the UCC, including all hiring and firing of lay and clergy personnel and use of volunteers within the life of the church: local churches, associations, conferences, national instrumentalities and agencies." These recommendations were approved by the 1983 General Synod by a large majority.
An "Open and Affirming" resolution was presented to that same 1983 General Synod, but it was referred to the Executive Council for "study and possible action." The Executive Council subsequently mistakenly judged that the resolution's subject matter had already been addressed by previous General Synods and recommended no action.
Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Conference, meeting in 1984, passed a revised "Open and Affirming" resolution. This resolution called on all UCC churches in Massachusetts to declare themselves "open and affirming of lesbian, gay and bisexual persons" and to adopt nondiscrimination policies. An implementation committee planned day-long workshops on how to become "Open and Affirming" congregations and created other resources for local churches. The Massachusetts Conference also submitted its "Open and Affirming" resolution for placement on the agenda of the 1985 General Synod.
The "Open and Affirming" resolution was crucial because it raised concerns that had never been meaningfully addressed within the UCC. Local congregations had never been strongly urged to adopt nondiscrimination policies nor provided with resources for doing so. The intent of the resolution was to make the fight against discrimination against lesbians and gay men within the church a denominational responsibility and to facilitate dialogue in each UCC congrega tion.
There was much resistance to placing this resolution on the agenda of the 1985 General Synod. It took concerted efforts by many supportive delegates from several conferences and a strong presence by UCCL/GC to get the resolution before the General Synod and to secure its adoption. Central to the lobbying effort were the personal testimonials of more than 40 openly gay and lesbian UCC members. In the end, the "Open and Affirming" resolution was adopted by a 95% majority of the General Synod delegates.
Now the challenge is implementation. General Synod actions are only recommendations to local churches. UCCL/GC is urging the UCC Office of Church Life and Leadership to implement the resolution by developing resources to enable local church dialogue. Two consultants are on staff at the Board for Homeland Ministries to provide information and guidance on ministries with lesbians, gay men, bisexual persons, and their families. UCCL/GC is encouraging its members to actively initiate "Open and Affirming" statements in their home congregations.
We are striving to directly involve United Church of Christ congregations in the movement to end discrimination. We know the "Open and Affirming" resolution will be ignored by many UCC congregations, but some will engage in the education and dialogue so essential to the opening of hearts and minds. In this entire process, we believe the true expression of Christian discipleship has been and will continue to be revealed: the personification of God's love in human community through faith, not fear.
Open Hands/I 7
f!3ulfaining flje f!3pitif
Reading
, '~elieve that Gay culture at its heart is continually, how.
I... ~er unconsciously, trying to reveal the other side, sometimesjust to reveal the fact that there are sides. I believe we do this with regard to the sexes, to work roles, to the world oj judgment and value, oj aesthetics, ojphilosophies. oj other realms oj consciousness. We act out irony. essential humor, and paradox . ...
In tribal culture we often Jormed a pool ofpotential initiates some oj whom became the shamans and medicine people who can enter the spirit world, the wind, the mountains and rivers and the bottom oj the sea; the worlds oj the dead. or spirits, oj other people's minds, oj the gods and their Jorces; we it is who bring back the strange and old messages, interpreting them Jor the benefit ojour tribe. Anciently we were sometimes rewarded and esteemed
Jor this, though I don't doubt we were more than once stoned out oj town or tarred and Jeathered. We can be velY aggravating, moody people, even to ourselves. And oj course we don't always bring good or easy news. What we perhaps have at the core is an uncanny ability to identify with what we are not, to die as one Jorm and return as another, to go Jrom shy cocoon to rampant butterfly. to enter the wolves' den to learn the wolves' wisdom and return uneaten, though not unmarked. We have been the oracles and inspired divin ers, the mediums who interpret the stars, the
cards, the kings idle remarks. the weather and innards ojJowls, .
the gossip, the history and poetry and saga oj a people. And we
remain remarkably tuned to a particular inner vision that is compelling
to us. leading us into sometimes painJul, /sometimesJ grueling, /sometimesJ lonely. /sometimes joyJulJ lives. ..
[Reprinted with pennission from Judy Grahn, Another
Mother Tongue: Gay Words, Gay Worlds, Beacon Press, 1984,
pp. 273-4.]
qFFirming
Our min-)triC!)
Litany
LEADER: We are fortunate, today, to be able to gather as a people of the church. As men and women; as gay and lesbian and bi-sexual and straight; as people of many origins and backgrounds.
ALL: We gather as a community with a common task of seeking justice, of living in shalom, of prophesying to the church, and to the many communities that our lives touch. We are teachers, prophets, healers, interpreters, lovers of life.
LEADER: We confess, however, that we too often find comfort in our cocoons.
ALL: Rather, like butterflies, we reach out to one another and risk transfonnation.
LEADER: / And we confess that we too often shun the voices of the shamans and spirits within and amongst us.
ALL: Rather, we dare to listen and learn from one another.
LEADER: Each of us is called, as a member of this community, to offer our gifts to the common journey. Our gifts are diverse, our gifts are unique, our gifts are not replaceable. Today, we affinn our loving and inclusive ministries with one another.
ALL: From the God within us, we affinn our love-ministries. We smile in joyful acceptance of our loves, and our lives, and our gifts which we share as a community.
LEADER: God, who is our mother, father, friend, and lover-send us out from this community as your people.
LEFT: We gather strength for the journey as the Hebrew people gathering manna.
RIGHT: We store wisdom as the shaman leaders storing herbs and knowledge.
LEFT: We put on courage as Amazon women putting on armor for the battle.
RIGHT: And we go in laughter and joy, as children in love with our world.
ALL: Sustaining Spirit, send us forth, empowering each other and empowering those we meet on our journeys to use our gifts in the work for healing, and justice, and shalom. We ask your presence on our common journey. Amen.
i 8/0pen Hands
By Richard E. Husky, M.D.
Decisions made at the past few General Conferences demonstrate that the United
Methodist Church has clearly chosen a
noninclusive direction in its treatment of gay men and lesbians. Beginning with the 1972 conference in Atlanta, the church started an avalanche of activity that ultimately has affected our theological assumptions. When the church, at the 1984 General Conference in Baltimore, officially closed ordination to gay men and lesbians, it essentially restructured its theology. A church cannot exclude a significant population from full participation in its community without automatically changing the very nature-and, therefore, the theological basis-of that community.
Ultimately, we gay and lesbian United Methodists were defamed in our humanity and declared to be "incompatible with Christian teaching." Rather than ask, question, quiz, poll, or subpoena us about our belief in Jesus Christ or about our lifestyles, the General Conference acted in bad faith by defaming people it did not care to understand or know. Under most systems of justice, this would be considered an intolerable situation and as ugly a history as any inquisition or kangaroo court. Quite simply, the General Conference acted out of homophobia (fear of homosexuals), rather than out of faith and trust in God's world.
As a result of the United Methodist Church's abandoning gay and lesbian United Methodists through denying our equal right to pursue the call to ordained ministry, many of its beliefs and assertions have become meaningless. This is especially true when it comes to the church's delivering on the promises made to us when we were baptized. Quite simply, the church has caused the waters of baptism to dry up.
Baptism is a covenant that prescribes a certain form of relationship between the church and the person being baptized-child or adult; gay, lesbian, or straight. In the sacrament, the church agrees to provide for specific forms of nurture in the life of the person being baptized-promising that he or she will be "surrounded by steadfast love," "established in the faith," and "confirmed and strengthened in the way that leads to life eternal."
The United Methodist Church may indeed want to deliver on these promises, but this nurture is withheld from persons being baptized if they are gay or lesbian. Instead of being loved, established, confirmed, and strengthened, we have been hated, castigated, and shunned. Most of us can recite a cacophony of abuses and mistreatment by so-called well-intentioned Christians. Many of us have experienced more rejection, hostility, and abuse in the "family of God" than in our biological families. For unlike an institution that marginalizes persons without knowing them, many of our families have come to know and, in many cases, affirm us, experiencing us as whole human beings, capable of leading lives centered in commitment and devo-
ORDINATION:THE
Richard E. Husky, M.D. is a former member ofthe Minnesota Annual Conference (UMC). Subsequently trained as a physician, Husk}' is an active UMC layperson and lives in St. Pau l, Minnesota.
tion to God. Our families know we are good Christians, and they have experienced the many ways we inject both quality and zest into Christian life. These findings are being shared by members of the Reconciling Congregations in our denomination.
What recourse do we have? First, we do what we always do so well-we pray for the person being baptized, that he or she will be "surrounded in steadfast love, established in the faith, and confirmed and strengthened in the way that leads to life eternal." Second, we continue to hold our church accountable for its words and deeds. For example, when the bishops in the church complain that membership is rapidly dropping, we remind them that Christians are no foolspeople go where they are fed, and the United Methodist Church's treatment of its gay and lesbian members frequently embitters the food the church offers. The United Methodist Church is unlikely to grow until it takes care of its "old" business with us, learns to feed all who come, and makes good on its promises.
Open Hands/19
RDI NATION: THE
UX?
Bishop Slater was interrupted by an unknown young man with a group of unshaven and disorderly spectators sitting near the pulpit. The young man finally introduced himselfas a representative from the "Gay Liberation Group" and tried to read a protest from a printed page which branded the ministerial body as being hypocrites, and with other undefinable shouts [sic]. After a series ofexchange of words, it was moved that a 10-minute maximum be set to hear the representative. The motion was denied.
Monday night business session,
May 31, 1971, 7 p.m., San Antonio, Texas,
113th Annual Session,
Southwest Texas Annual Conference,
The United Methodist Church
ose
ByF. Gene Leggett
F. Gene Leggett is afonner member ofthe Soutlnvest Texas Annual Conference (UMC). He is nowa member of Oak Lawn UMC (Dallas) and works for the Fort Worth Opera Company.
I had been warned never to face the enemy alone. Because lesbian and gay people were primarily an invisible minority, it was important that we be seen in groups that were as large as possible. A true revolution would need to reflect the group oppression of the minority rather than the concerns of an injured individual. Besides, it could be just plain scary to face alone the hostility of a large group of straight folks!
I discovered this truth in 1970 at a called session of the ministerial delegates of the Southwest Texas Annual Conference. Prior to that session, I had not attended a gathering of my conference since 1965, when I had privately admitted my homosexuality. Since then, I had had an unwritten agreement with conference hierarchy that I could keep my credentials, if I did not request a local church appointment.
The special 1970 session had been called to discuss a "crisis" that existed among the conference's clergy. At it, I publicly confirmed for my fellow ministers what they had gossiped about for five years-that I had an experimental house church for gay men and lesbians. Bedlam erupted as ministers shouted for an "on the spot" church trial, and the bishop immediately adjourned the session.
The conference hierarchy began urging me to take voluntary location or retirement at the 1971 regular annual conference session so that I could maintain my credentials. But, because I felt called to a ministry denied to the church at large, I refused.
Knowledge that the 1971 conference would deal with my ordination brought together a number of gay people from across the state. Most of them had at one time had close relationships to the church, with some having earlier contemplated entering the ordained ministry. All saw the church as the focusiof their oppression and felt that they had nothing to lose through confrontation. I, on the other hand, still had my credentials at stake.
It was agreed that these activists' actions before the conference would remain separate from mine, although I pledged them my support. My strategy was to remain faithful to proper ecclesiastical procedure. The possibility was there for the church truly to be the church. While the probability of my retaining my credentials was virtually nonexistent, I knew that my challenge, through due process, was necessary to break the demonic pattern that was the church's method of dealing with "exposed" clergy. 1 ~
The Monday night session began in the usual manner, with a hymn and salutary amenities. Then, the request came that the "gay voice" be heard in the church. A motion was made and denied. Cries of "hypocrites" and "Pharisees" came from the activists; delegates rushed from their seats to drag the protesters from the church, while others shouted "Get the queers out of here!" I was sitting in the eye of the storm; the "gay issue" was being born, and the church was responding with violent denial. Friends ran to where I remained seated, tears streaming down my face. They begged me to stop the protesters, to control them, but I replied, "They are your children; you must talk to them." After a 10-minute recess, order was restored, and the majority of the conference voted that the protesters be given the fi nal five minutes of the session. At the agreed time, one of them-in a quiet, emotionally charged voice-read a prepared petition. After declaring that "It cannot be historically denied that the Church as an institution has covertly and systematically condoned and implemented the oppression of homosexual women and men," the statement made 10 demands of the conference. Among these were that the conference accept "the authenticity of the gay life style"; "in light of its historical oppression, ... make sizeable reparations to gay people in the form of programs, facilities, and money";
20/0pen Hands
L
srupte ?•
~
and "cease the harassment of Gene Leggett and support in all ways necessary-including financial-" my house church.
The minutes of that business session conclude, "After several announcements, the benediction was pronounced by the Rev. Allen G. Roe, Sr." The petition was not entered into the record, and no reply was ever made. But a gay voice had been heard!
The next day, after painful debate, my credentials were removed by involuntary location. The vote was 144 in favor, 117 against. Two ministers turned in their credentials in sympathetic protest; audible sobs punctuated a deathly silence. Outside the conference, a custodian comforted me, "Don't worry, honey. Somebody up there gave you credentials they can't touch!"
Every year since that conference, the gay/lesbian issue has been raised, not only in Southwest Texas but across United Methodism. In the Southwest Texas conference, delegates still speak indignantly of "the Disruption of '71." I reply that it is not to be compared with the disruption that church and society continues to cause in the lives of its lesbian and gay children. Every year, I request that my credentials be restored; every year, I plead that the church listen to the cries of its child ren.
ORD-.-.OS I NATION: TH E u
~The of the
ose
By Jeffrey G. Snyder
Jeffrey G. Snyder is serving a United Methodist congregation as an elder in the California-Nevada Conference.
Ben and I met our very first day at seminary. It
didn't take us long to discover that we were
soul mates. That first term, we agonized
together over all sorts of new ideas. We spent hours studying together, developing joint class projects, and working on field assignments. We had countless late night bull sessions. We debated politics, sports, family planning, child rearing, abortion, drugs, booze, and homosexuality. In January when Ben married Jayne, I participated in their wedding. Our families remained close throughout seminary. Ben and I were really good friends-more like brothers. We were always there for each other.
I entered the appointment process before Ben and was ordained first. When Ben was ordained, I was deeply moved when he asked me to be one of the participating elders in his service and to take part in the laying on of hands. After that, as Ben and I worked with various cabinets and district superintendents, we always sought each other's counsel on new appointments. When one of us had to go with our spouse for an interview, the other couple would keep the children and vice versa. Ben delighted in my daughter and I was thrilled with his son.
When Ben and Jayne's second child was born, my family took a few vacation days to visit and assist them. During that visit, Ben asked me if we could take a walk. There was something he had wanted to tell me for a long time. That night, as we walked through the old cemetery by his church, Ben confided to me that he was gay. He said he had known since he was 13. His parents had been horrified at the thought and put him in therapy. Although therapy calmed his parents, it only forced Ben into the closet.
Throughout college, Ben cruised bookstores and
(continued)
Open Hands/ 21
ORDI
AT ON:THE RUX? Cost of the Closet (continued) bars. He hated himself for such behavior but felt compelled to explore this part of himself through the only means his closet would allow. It was also during these college years that Ben felt called to the ordained ministry. Then he met Jayne. Pulled together through common political interests, Ben and Jayne fast became friends. They so enjoyed each other's company, that marriage seemed like a logical step. Ben reasoned, "Every pastor needs a spouse and maybe this marriage will change me." It didn't. Soon after the wedding, the cruising began again. Ben's paranoia grew. Jayne didn't know of Ben's homosexuality. Nor did his congregation, Board of Ordained Ministry, or bishop. But Ben knew, and he needed to tell someone. As his best friend and "brother," I was the natural choice. For the next several years, we shared Ben's secret. Then one night our phone rang. It was Jayne. She was sobbing. Ben had just told her. It was their sixth wedding anniversary. Jayne came to stay with us for a few days. Later Ben joined her. There was much pain and grief, and many tears. But it was also the beginning of a new honesty between them. Over the next year, Ben and Jayne worked hard to save their relationship. They were determined to stay together and find ways that Ben could come to accept and affirm himself and his homosexuality. Together, Ben and Jayne sought counseling. Ben joined a very discreet support group for gay clergy in his area. With Jayne's support, Ben found avenues for ministry within the gay community. He began preaching regularly on Sunday evenings at a nearby gay church. He came out to his parents and family. He shared his secret wi th a few trusted lay people within his congregation. They supported Ben. As he came more out of the closet, he was happier, healthier, and a better pastor than I had ever known him to be. In the early months of 1984, Ben decided to confi de in his seemingly open and caring district superintendent. During their conversation, the D.S. seemed to sense where the discussion was leading. Abruptly, he made it clear that he didn't want to know anything that he might have to share at "a higher level." He reminded Ben that the climate of the church was not supportive of Ben's liberal views on homosexuality. The General Conference of 1984 would soon take a stand on gay issues. And until that stance was known, the D.S. felt it necessary to postpone the conversation with Ben. That conversation was never to be resumed. That day began a new stage of paranoia for Ben. He became more withdrawn. He stopped preaching at the gay church and stopped attending his support group. Afte r the 1984 General Conference made its negative decisions, Ben sank into a deep depression. He felt that the church that he loved, and had served for many years, didn't want him fo r who he was. Our phone conversations, which had once been long, intimate times of sharing, became polite talk about our churches and . 22/0pen Hands children. When I pushed Ben to know how he felt or what was happening, his answers were always the same. He would reply, ''I'm fine! Everything's great!" But it wasn't. In June 1984 Jayne called to tell me that Ben had experienced "some sort of a breakdown" and had been hospitalized in a psychiatric ward. Since then, Ben has been in a period of strong denial. He is deeply closeted and hasn't called or written in over a year. I've called him a few times, but he doesn't want to talk. There is a tension in his voice as he tells me that everything is "just fine." He loves ministry. He loves the people he is pastoring. He fears losing that. The action of the 1984 General Conference weighs hea'vily on his mind. He wants to be left alone, in his closet. The decision of the church to deny the ordination and appointment of "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" has cost Ben a great deal. He pays the cost every day in fear, panic, tension, poor health, and selfrejection. It is costing his parish too. Their pastor isn't free to be himself. He is physically ill much of the time. He is distracted and wonders why God continues to call him to a task that the church says he isn't worthy to perform. The cost is high. And Ben's closet is also costly to the general church. Through its homophobia, it has caused Ben and many others like him to compromise their integrity and dignity. They have heen driven to deny an intrinsic part of themselves and to retreat to the closet of paranoia and deceit. How can a church commissioned to be light for the world, challenged by Christ to offer persons the life abundant, and committed to a compassionate God, condemn any of its clergy or laity to the closet, and yet maintain its own integrity, dignity, and honesty? The cost of the closet is very great-to the church, to the ministry of Christ, to every gay or lesbian person called to the ministry, to every lay person who would receive the gifts of that ministry, to Ben, and to me. You see, Ben hasn't called or written in over a year. fA note to readers: "Ben" and "Jayne" are fictitious names chosen in order to protect th e tme identities ofth e subjects ofthis account./
I am a deacon with probationary membership in an annual conference of the United Methodist Church. I am currently serving in a special
appointment after a few years of pastoring in the local church. I will be interviewed soon for elder's orders. And I am a lesbian.
About ten years ago, I went through a time of searching in my life. During that time, I not only decided to answer God's call to ordained ministry, but I also "came out" to myself as a lesbian. I learned that God was calling me forth in both my vocation and my lifestyle as I sought to be faithful. I had mixed feelings. I was excited about going into ministry and relieved at knowing my sexual orientation. But I was also confused about how ordination and my sexual identity could be lived out in the United Methodist Church.
My consistent response to this confusion has been to journey in faith, trusting my loving God. As I began to move forward in this trust, God blessed me with the love of a woman with whom I continue to share my life. She was, and continues to be, an active layperson in the Anon~ous ·__~~~~~_____
United Methodist Church. I went to seminary with the support of my partner.
I entered seminary thinking that I could keep my lesbianism to myself. But I found that keeping it a secret, especially from people with whom I had developed deep friendships, felt like a suppression of my God-given life energy. During these years, given the church's stance on homosexual clergy, I realized that to continue my ordination process, I needed to take an involuntary vow of silence. When I chose to tell others of my lesbianism, they too were burdened with this silence.
During my interviews for deacon's orders, I was never asked about my sexual orientation. However, I lived in fear of being confronted and having to defend myself. I was ordained upon graduation and sought appointment to a local church. I risked both my vocation and appointment by entrusting the knowledge of my identity with a cabinet member. That encounter was a positive one. Through it, we were able to arrange an appropriate appointment which met my needs and was also convenient for my partner.
My first full-time appointment was a good match for me. As my new congregation's first woman pastor, we made the necessary adjustments to each other. My partner and I continued to live together and we both worked hard at taking care of the congregation. We also
ORDINATION:THE
labored to keep our togetherness inconspicuou
worked to maintain the appropriate image exp of
me by the congregation, as I worried about jeopardizing
my chances for elders' orders. My partner and I convinced
ourselves that the work and situation were
tolerable.
Although we were not open about the fullness of our relationship with members of the congregation, we felt loved and accepted as people who cared for one another. They let us know that they respected and appreciated our friendship. This, of course, was bittersweet because we, like most people, wanted to be loved for exactly who we were. I often wondered whether the congregation would have been as accepting of us had they known the full extent of our relationship. Unfortunately, I don't think they would have been. That saddens me. My seminary and ministry experiences have been affected by the fears, stresses, and worries surrounding my life as a lesbian within the church. It has taken its toll on my health and the health of my relationship with my partner. The energy I have expended to censor expression of my life has affected my integrity. Now that I am in a special appointment, I am not as pressured to uphold the image expected by the local church. However, out of my own experience, I am now aware that the church perpetuates the fears, tensions, and low selfesteems of its gay and lesbian seminarians and clergy. What I have come to realize is that by participating in keeping my sexual identity a secret, I not only have hurt myself and my relationship, but I also have protected the church. But the church does not need protection from me or my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Gay men and lesbians carry the burden that the United Methodist Church refuses to accept as its own mission. As long as the church remains in the closet about the good news of Christ it has to share with both lesbian/gay and straight persons, it is repressing its own life energy. As I consider my own situation and experience as a Christian lesbian, I am grateful for the opportunity to tell my story. I do not tell it in anger, for I love the church. My life has been blessed for four decades by many loving people within the United Methodist Church. I would like to believe that I can rise above the negative experiences and act as if God has already liberated me from the oppression of homophobia and freed me up to live fully and faithfully in Christ.
Iknow that I will continue to struggle as a lesbian clergyperson within the United Methodist Church. And I know others will face similar struggles as God continues to call gays and lesbians into the ministry. I continually ask whether the often painful journeys are worth it all. But along with the pain which I carry, I also carry the hope of healing for myself and the church. This hope and the love of friends gives me the courage to continue in my journey of Christian faith.
Open Hands/23
For ~urther study, reflection, and actlOn, we offer a sampling of
denominational reports and study
d?cuments and of books dealing
WIth theological/biblical perspectives
on human sexuality and homosexuality.
For more information on
activities on lesbian/gay concerns in
the various denominations, contact
the denominational organizations
listed below.
Reports/Study Documents
UNITED PRESBYTERIAN
CHURCH (U.S.A.)
Sexuality and the Human Community.
The Task Force on Human Sexuality. This report was authorized by the 182nd General Assembly. Published in 1970, it covers biblical and theological foundations, Christian goals for interpersonal relationships, and specific sexuality issues.
The Church and Homosexuality. This report was commissioned in 1976 and received by the 190th General Assembly (1978). Contains the background paper of the Task Force to Study Homosexuality and the policy statement and recommendations adopted by the General Assembly. (62 pages.) ' Can be ordered from: The Office of the General Assembly, 120 l' Interchurch Center, 475 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10027.
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST
Human Sexuality: A Preliminary Study. Board/or Homeland Ministries. Authorized by the 1975 General Synod and accepted at the 1977 General Synod, this report was produced by the Task Force to Study Human Sexuality. Comprehensive in covering biblical/theological, ethical, psychosocial, public policy, and congregational perspectives. (258 pages.) Order from: Board for Homeland Ministries, 132 W. 31 st Street New York, NY 10001. 212/239~ 8700. Published by United Church Press.
UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
Guide to the Study Document on Human Sexuality. Discipleship Resources. Study document proposed by the Women's Division ofthe Board of Global Ministries and adopted by the 1980 General Conference. The General Conference mandated that the study document be published with a guide for individual or group study, along with a bibliography. Published in 1983. (52 pages.) Order from: Discipleship Resources, P.O. Box 840, Nashville, TN 37202.
Books
Edwards, George. Gay/Lesbian Liberation: A Biblical Perspective. New York: Pilgrim Press, 1984.
Mace, David. The Christian Response to the Sexual Revolution. Nashville: Abingdon, 1970.
Nelson, James. Between Two Gardens: Reflection on Sexuality and Religious Experience. New York: Pilgrim Press, 1983.
___Embodiment: An Approach to Sexuality and Christian Theology. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1978.
Scroggs, Robin. The New Testament and Sexuality. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
Organ izations
Affirmation: United Methodists
for Lesbian/Gay Concerns
P.O. Box 1021
Evanston, IL 60204
American Baptists Concerned
2418 Browning Street
Berkeley, CA 94702
Brethren/Mennonite Council
for Gay Concerns
P.O. Box 24060
Washington, DC 20024
Dignity (Roman Catholic)
1500 Massachusetts Avenue, NW # 11
Washington, DC 20005
Friends for Lesbian and
Gay Concerns
P.O. Box 222
Sumneytown, PA 18084
Integrity (Episcopal)
4550 Connecticut Avenue, NW #605
Washington, DC 20008
Lutherans Concerned
P.O. Box 10461
Fort Dearborn Station
Chicago, IL 60610
Presbyterians for
Lesbian/Gay Concerns
P.O. Box 38
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
Unitarian Universalist Office
of Lesbian/Gay Concerns
25 Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108
United Church Coalition
for Lesbian/Gay Concerns
18 N. College Street
Athens, OH 45701
Reconciling Congregations
Washington Square UMC Wheadon UMC c/o Cathie Lyons & c/o Carol Larson
Ed Weaver 2212 Ridge Avenue 135 W. 4th Street Evanston, IL 60201 New York, NY 10012
51. Paul's UMC Park Slope UMC c/o George Christie c/o A. Finley Schaef 1615 Ogden Street 6th Avenue & 8th Street Denver, CO 80218 Brooklyn, NY 11215
Crescent Heights UMC Calvary UMC c/o Lyle Loder c/ o Chip Coffman 1296 North Fairfax 815 S. 48th Street West Hollywood, CA 90046 Philadelphia, PA 19143
Wesley UMC Christ UMC c/o Warren Russell c/o Bea Judge 1343 E. Barstow Avenue 4th & Eye Streets, SW Fresno, CA 93710 Washington, DC 20024
Bethany UMC St. John's UMC c/o Christine L. Shiber c/ o Howard Nash 1268 Sanchez Street 2705 St. Paul Street San Francisco, CA 94114 Baltimore, MD 21218
Sunnyhills UMC Edgehill UMC c/o Martha Chow c/ o Hoyt Hickman 335 Dixon Road 1502 Edgehill Avenue Milpitas, CA 95035 Nashville, TN 37212
Wallingford UMC Central UMC c/o Chuck Richards c/o Howard Abts 2115 N. 42nd Street 701 West Central at Seattle, WA 98103
Scottwood Toledo, OH 43610 Capitol Hill UMC c/ o Pat Dougherty
128 Sixteen Street EastUniversity UMC Seattle, WA 98112 c/ o Steven Webster
1127 University Avenue
Madison, WI 53715
24/0pen Hands