Getting Honest about Disagreement

There's no telling whether the following Slaughter/Hamilton amendment will actually make it into the Book of Discipline or not today.  But they are meaningful and honest words that might give a drink of water to those who are in the desert and feeling parched.  Praying for our delegates this day.

Proposed Amendment by Substitution for

Calendar Item 513 (DCA page number 2367),

Petition Number 21032 (ADCA page number 270)

(May 3, 2012)

The following amendment would replace the proposed

amendment contained in the original petition:

Homosexuality continues to divide our society and

the church. All in the United Methodist Church affirm

that homosexual persons are people of sacred worth and

are welcome in our churches, but we disagree as a people

regarding whether homosexual practice is contrary

to the will of God.

The Bible is our primary text for discerning God's

will. We read and interpret it by the light of the Spirit's

witness, with the help of the thoughtful reflections of

Christians through the centuries, and assisted by our

understanding of history, culture and science.

The majority view through the history of the

church is that the scriptures teach that same-sex sexual

intimacy is contrary to the will of God. This view is

rooted in several passages from both the Old and New

Testament.

A significant minority of our church views the

scriptures that speak to same-sex intimacy as reflecting

the understanding, values, historical circumstances and

sexual ethics of the period in which the scriptures were

written, and therefore believe these passages do not reflect

the timeless will of God. They read the scriptures

related to same-sex intimacy in the same way that they

read the Bible's passages on polygamy, concubinage,

slavery and the role of women in the church.

United Methodists will continue to struggle with

this issue in the years ahead as a growing number of

young adults identify with what is today the minority

view. The majority view of the General Conference,

and thus the official position of the church, continues

to hold that same-sex intimacy is not God's will. We

recognize, however, that many faithful United

Methodists disagree with this view.

It is likely that this issue will continue to be a

source of conflict within the church. We have a choice:

We can divide, or we can commit to disagree with compassion,

grace, and love, while continuing to seek to understand

the concerns of the other. Given these

options, schism or respectful co-existence, we choose

the latter.

We commit to disagree with respect and love, we

commit to love all persons and, above all, we pledge to

seek God’s will. With regard to homosexuality, as with

so many other issues, United Methodists adopt the attitude

of JohnWesley who once said, "Though we cannot

think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one

heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt,

we may."

Submitted by Adam Hamilton and Mike Slaughter

Crumple, Swish, Two Points

Text: Mark 15:1-39
Date: April 1, 2012
Green Street UMC, Augusta, ME
Thomas L. Blackstone, Ph.D., Preacher

Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.

And the curtain of the Temple was torn in two…. Torn in two. The commentaries have explanations for that odd event, of course. Those of you who have studied the OT in Disciple Bible Study and elsewhere, or who have watched Indiana Jones movies, know that in the center of the Second Jewish Temple was a room, the holy of holies (קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים). It was at the rear of the room into which only the priests were allowed access. And into the Holy of Holies, only the high priest was allowed to go, and he but once a year, on the Day of Atonement, to offer a yearly sacrifice before the Ark of the Covenant. So great was the holiness of this room that a rope would be tied around the high priest’s waist, lest he be struck dead by being in the presence of God, and need to be pulled out by those unworthy to enter to retrieve him.

The Holy of Holies was a means of providing for the people’s need of holiness. It was a way of making the very presence of God available to the people of Israel through an intermediary. But then Jesus came. And Jesus loved so many people without regard to the opinions of the religious authorities of his time, that Jesus was put to death. And upon the moment of his death upon that cross, “the curtain of the temple was torn in two.” It has a symbolic meaning, of course, that access to God will no longer be through intermediaries, that the holiness of God is not kept in a back room someplace, but is present through faith in the person of Emmanuel, God with us. But the tearing of the curtain, it seems to me, is also symbolic of the fracture of time which occurs when humanity puts to death the one who perfectly embodies God’s universal love.

It is our belief as Christians that that day changes everything. Christ dies, is murdered, executed, and after that death something new begins to happen.

There is, across from where our family computer is in our kitchen, a trash can, about 10 feet away. And on most days, while sitting at the computer, I crumple up and throw papers toward that trash can, and most of the time they go in. In fact, some of my bank shots off of the pantry doors are amazing, usually when no one is around to be impressed by them. Sometimes I’m throwing away junk mail, sometimes old information that isn’t needed any longer, and sometimes I am throwing away paper on which plans have been written. You see, I’m a great one for planning things out on paper. Later this month we’re going to go looking at colleges with Patrick, and there is a white sheet of paper on my desk with days, and destinations, and numbers of miles in between. There’s a list of bulletins that needs to be written for this week, and what day Darby needs to receive them. There are lists of important dates for the three different schools our kids attend, with yellow highlighter marking what days we’re supposed to pick them up or drop them off. These slips of paper are our plans, our expectations, and even our dreams for how life will be in days to come. And sooner or later life comes calling, and one or more of those pieces of paper have to be crumpled into a ball and sent flying through the air. Crumple. Swish. Two points.

• A few years back I was privileged to be asked to serve as a sponsor to another pastor who was being ordained at annual conference. It was a once in a lifetime opportunity, but when the day came I was flat on my back in the hospital with a mystery infection. Crumple. Swish. Two points.

• I once met with a military couple to plan the perfect wedding. They both had gotten leave the same week from separate bases to gather at their home church and tie the knot. Invitations were sent out, gifts were wrapped, the dress was fluffed and the dress uniform was pressed. Their wedding date? September 15, 2001, four days after the attacks on New York and Washington. Crumple. Swish. Two points.

Yes, we make our plans, we decide how things are going to be, we even write it all down on paper. But then God, or fate, or simply life steps in and everything can change.

I’m sure that the first Holy Week was like that for Jesus and his disciples. Palm Sunday was an amazing moment. The cheering crowds were an affirmation of all that Jesus had done and preached and taught from day one. “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.”

What happened between Sunday and Friday to turn their lives around in such a horrible and decisive way is something that we can’t completely understand, anymore than Peter, Andrew, James, and John could, and they were there living it moment by moment. One minute Jesus couldn’t have been more popular. A short time later his life’s blood was draining from his body, and he was closing his eyes in death. Crumple. Swish. Two points. Whatever earthly plans he and his disciples might have had for the future were so much paper in the rubbish bin. He was dying, the story was ending, cruelty and evil and death had won, as they had won so many times before.

Last Thursday afternoon, I went to St. Francis Catholic Church in Winthrop to donate blood. While I’ve never had the physical gifts that the world values highly: an athletic build, long wavy hair, or six pack abs, I do have one thing that everyone eventually wants: O-negative blood. So they parked me on a portable cot, stuck the needle in, and left me to contemplate the crucifix on the wall of the Knights of Columbus Hall. Protestant crosses, as you know, tend to be empty, reminders of resurrection, but the gift of the Catholic Church to Christendom is to never let us forget that Jesus bled on Good Friday, that he did not die in a theoretical, metaphorical way, but with nails hammered into his wrists and ankles, wounds that would have killed Jesus with infection were he not already drowning in his own fluids, feebly pushing his body up against the wood and the nails in a futile attempt to force air into his collapsing lungs. Yes, Jesus bled on Good Friday.

Raising my head up, I looked around and counted a dozen men and women slowly squeezing a bit of PVC pipe in one hand or the other, coaxing the blood out of their veins and into the plastic collection bag. It occurred to me that if someone from another place and time were to wander into that room at the moment, they would be horrified to see twelve people shedding their life’s blood. The visitors would assume that they had stumbled into a tragic moment in the life of Kennebec County. But what they would not see, of course, is the result of that shedding of blood. They would not be there when a surgical nurse reaches for a dark red bag and uses it to infuse life back into a body, pale and cold, or to recharge tired veins filled with chemotherapy drugs or toasted with radiation.

So it is, perhaps, with the cross. Jesus bleeds and dies on the cross because he refuses to place limits on the love of God, to artificially constrain, in accordance with human standards, with whom he associates. And so Jesus dies not simply for the righteous, but for sinners, suffering with the victims of religious bigots and bullies, rather than standing self-righteously with their oppressors. He was not the Messiah they expected, not even the one whom they wanted. But he was God’s Messiah, and so was the undoing of all human expectations and pretensions, all human plans, no matter how beautifully calligraphied or documented. Crumple. Swish. Two points.

Our visitors from another place and time would look at the cross and see suffering, the suffering that is inevitable when love and goodness confront power and corruption. But they would not see that such a death was the undoing of death itself. That the God who cared enough to die with those who suffer, would not allow such suffering to go unchallenged and unquestioned. Last week in West Virginia I had the privilege of serving in mission with 19 outstanding Christians who went to work and share with the people of one of our nation’s poorest states. It’s a trip we’ll be hearing about over the next several weeks. One day on that trip, one of our members hammered his thumb while putting a nail into a wall. Twenty minutes later, because he is an enthusiastic worker, he did it again. Blood was shed in West Virginia. And tetanus shots were given in West Virginia. But it was shed for a good and righteous and holy cause. It was shed in service and obedience to the one who laid down his life for those same men and women, living in the trailers and bearing in their bodies the pain of harvesting the coal that provided for their families.

We may have many items written on the mental or physical piece of paper where we make our life’s plans for ourselves and others. And while many of those plans may come to be, many of them, in fact, will not. Whether through misfortune, malice, bad luck, illness, death, or disaster, not all of our dreams and schemes will come true. Crumple. Swish. Two points.

But God is doing a new thing, brothers and sisters. Every time that the world says no, every time that the world says not yet, every time that the world says it isn’t possible, know that God is doing a new thing. Blood in plastic bags becomes life to those who suffer, surgeons are operating on hearts the size of grapes and giving infants a new lease on life, and Jesus is holding out his hands to a hurting world, and gathering us sinners from the dark places, and inviting us here to this meal, to this improbable, impossible meal, a meal to which we would not be invited, but for the grace of God. And so today we place in our backpacks, the crumpled bits of paper that represent the plans that we made that will never be. And we offer them to God, confident that that even on this day when we hear the nails and endure our Lord’s suffering, God is doing….a new thing. Amen.

A Response to Bob Emrich

On 1/28/12, Bob Emrich wrote:

> Dear Pastor,
>
> As I am sure you are aware, Michael Gray, of the Old Orchard Beach United
> Methodist Church , has recently been prominently featured by Equality Maine
> and other groups advocating a change in Maine law that would change the
> definition of marriage to include "same-sex" couples. The implication and
> impression given is that this is now the position of the United Methodist
> Church Conference.
>
> My understanding is that the position of the United Method Church is still
> in accord with the Book of Discipline which states: "We affirm the sanctity
> of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal
> commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman. We believe that
> God's blessing rests upon such marriage, whether or not there are children
> of the union. We reject social norms that assume different standards for
> women than for men in marriage. We support laws in civil society that define
> marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Page 161 Book of Discipline
> for the United Methodist Church. "
>
> Am I mistaken in my understanding? If not, as a minister in the United
> Methodist Church, would you be willing to help publically clarify this
> important matter?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Pastor Bob Emrich
> Emmanuel Bible Church
> Plymouth, ME
>
>


From: Thom Blackstone
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:38:22 -0500
Subject: Re: clarification
To: Bob Emrich

Dear Pastor Emrich,

Thank you for your note. You have correctly quoted the 2008 United
Methodist Book of Discipline. This is a passage taken from our
"Social Principles." I don't know how familiar you are with our
church polity. The Discipline as a whole is rewritten every four
years at our General Conference. The next General Conference is being
held this April. As you might expect, the issue of homosexuality is
vigorously debated every four years, including the passage you cited.
Because our denomination has been growing rapidly in numerous African
countries and in So. Korea where traditional views of human sexuality
are only beginning to change, our Disciplinary statements have remained
mostly consistent on this question since 1972 when homosexuality was
first described as "incompatible with Christian teaching."

As United Methodists, we live in a covenant relationship in which diverse points
of view are allowed to exist side by side, as we all seek to live into
God's ultimate truth. While there are official church positions on a
number of issues within our "Social Principles," it is not a violation
of church law to hold differing points of view and to express those
views publicly. Nor is it a violation of church law to advocate for
changes to our Book of Discipline. Our Social Principles merely
reflect the discernment of the majority of the delegates present and
voting at each quadrennial gathering. They are not a theological "purity test"
for our clergy or lay persons, and often do not represent the views of
millions of faithful United Methodists. This isn't to say that our
Social Principles are not important, but that they represent an
ongoing and unfinished conversation between the Scriptures and the
world, in a Wesleyan context.

As United Methodists, we recognize that our official social teaching
has often gone astray from God's will. At times in our history, we
have tolerated the holding of slaves, and
quoted Scripture while we did it. We once segregated persons of color
into a separate ecclesiastical structure known as the Central
Conference, denying them full inclusion in the life of the church. We
once banned women from the pulpit and withheld ordination from sisters
whom God had clearly called to ordained ministry. Now it is becoming
increasingly clear to many United Methodists that we have
illegitimately condemned our homosexual brothers and sisters for
seeking to live, and serve, and love, and marry, and raise children in
accordance with
their God-given sexual orientation. As someone who has followed this
conversation for 30 years, it is clear to me that our Social
Principles will eventually and inevitably be revised to reflect the
meaning of God's
Word in light of modern, scientific understandings of homosexuality.

I have read Pastor Gray's statement, and his journey from a
conservative stance on this issue to an openness towards same sex
marriage is very typical of many of our members and clergy. It is
entirely appropriate that he would share the story of his journey of
faith in a public context, in which "the public" often assumes that there
is only one monolithic Christian view of homosexuality and the
Scripture passages which address it. This is a topic which my church
has often discussed, and I have parishioners on both sides of this
issue. None of them would ever assume, however, that one of our pastors
should, or could, agree with every official social teaching issued by our
General Conference. Such an assumption would strike at the heart of
our rich and creative dialogue around our treasured Scriptures and
what God is saying to us through them.

I am curious why a Baptist pastor would write an unsolicited letter to
another pastor's colleagues in another denomination questioning that
pastor's integrity in sharing God's liberating Word as he feels led. I
had understood that the Maine Christian Civic League had made some
strides over the last two years in shifting its focus towards
religious work that Christian men and women of all denominations can
cooperate on: releasing Mainers from the demons of gambling and
addiction, alleviating hunger and homelessness, and advocating on behalf
of the poor. I would urge you to return to that important work, and
would remind you that this
referendum will have NO impact on any religious organization in
Maine that chooses not to celebrate or recognize the marriages of
lesbian and gay persons. There are so many worthy causes to which your
organization might devote its time and resources. Undermining the
effort to secure the blessings of marriage and family to gay couples
and their children is surely not the will of our loving Savior.

Grace & peace,

Pastor Thom Blackstone
Augusta