by Steve | Sep 27, 2011 | Magazine Articles
In order to keep the lines of communication open between evangelical renewal groups and the Council of Bishops, a gathering of representatives from both entities will take place in Chicago on October 21, 2011. This is a follow-up meeting to one that took place two years ago.
In November 2009, leaders of the renewal groups within the UM Church met with the Bishops’ Unity Task Force to share their concerns about the unity of the church and how the Church can move forward in mission together. The same task force of Bishops had previously met with a group representing the Reconciling Movement and the Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA).
The evangelical leaders spoke with the Bishops about (1) the theological differences that divide the church; (2) events at General Conference that have caused concern; and (3) activities and decisions outside of General Conference by United Methodist leaders that have created divisions rather than unity.
Good News President Rob Renfroe and Vice President Tom Lambrecht attended the original meeting in 2009 and both will be present for the October meeting in Chicago.
We believe that the Council of Bishops should be fully aware of the concerns of grassroots United Methodists. That is why we have created a blog that allows lay and clergy to express their hopes, beliefs, and concerns about the future of the UM Church. That future is threatened by bishops who are speaking out against the time-honored, Biblical position of our church on marriage and sexuality, by annual conferences that are encouraging the violation of our Book of Discipline, and by clergy who are promising to disobey the covenant that they had sworn to uphold.
The soul of the United Methodist Church is at stake. In this time of crisis for our church, we are having to decide whether to remain true to Scripture and the 3,000-year-old moral teachings of our faith, or cave in to a culture bent on excluding God from the public arena and making up its own standards of moral behavior.
We hope that you will utilize this site to tell us what you would like us to tell the Bishops. To participate, you can go to www.speaktothebishops.wordpress.com and add your voice. The Revs. Renfroe and Lambrecht will read your comments carefully and prayerfully consider them in formulating their conversation with the Unity Task Force in October.
by Steve | Sep 27, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Diane West
When I was informed that Jimmy Creech had recently released a book of his “memoirs,” Adam’s Gift, I thought about whether or not I wanted to read it. I was raised in First United Methodist Church in Omaha, Nebraska, and my family and I were very much involved in the situation that transpired there over a decade ago when Creech was appointed to the church as its pastor and was eventually put on trial for conducting a high-profile homosexual union ceremony. This storyline is one of the major topics in the book. Even though it was not really something upon which I wanted to spend my time, I concluded that I should reflect on his book in light of my firsthand experience.
The story told by Jimmy Creech in his book is about his journey over the past several decades. He begins with a story about “Adam,” a gay man who comes into his office crying one day in 1984 over the news that the General Conference of the United Methodist Church had just passed a new policy to prevent “self-avowing practicing homosexuals” from being ordained and appointed (pg.1). From this point forward, Creech recounts stories of his own “sexual awakening,” which are surprisingly graphic to the point of being unnecessary, proceeds to try to discredit each reference in the Bible referring to homosexual behavior, talks about how he basically changed his mindset regarding homosexuality, and describes how he acted on his new beliefs in his various ministerial appointments.
By the time I reached the end of the book, the text struck me as a rather desperate attempt to use emotion and sloppy “facts” to persuade the reader to empathize with the writer and his cause and to be emotionally obligated to adopt his point-of-view. There is also, of course, a recurrent theme of attempting to marginalize and trivialize the mindset of those who disagree with him, as though they are the ones whose convictions are violating the intent of God laid out in the Bible and the order of the church as determined in The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church. For example, Creech refers to the Confessing Movement as, “part of the global emergence of militant religious fundamentalism that seeks to hold onto archaic cultural structures of power” (pg. 108). He cannot seem to get past the fact that “lack of understanding” on the part of those who disagree with him is not the reason for their disagreement.
I kept waiting to see a redemptive story appear in Creech’s book, but it simply never did. A few passages sadly stood out. Creech says, “Although my mother and father were devout, they were not rigid in their beliefs. They taught me that our way isn’t God’s only way, but that there are a variety of people and religions in the world, all deserving as much respect as our own” (pg. 5). He also refers to “…the spirit of Methodism’s founder, John Wesley, who gave priority to piety over dogma and doctrine, and to social responsibility over purity and personal salvation” (pg. 13).
When referring to his ordination in the United Methodist Church, Creech says, “My application was not approved without controversy and resistance. Interestingly, this was not because of my theology. No one on the Board of Ordained Ministry seemed troubled by that, although I was told there was ‘too much horizontal and not much vertical’ in my understanding of God and the church. What caused the board difficulty was the length of my hair” (pg. 24). Also catching my eye was a comment made by Creech about a meeting with a parishioner from First United Methodist Church in Omaha “the day after Easter, which marks the mythic victory of God’s new order of life and freedom over the old order of oppression and death” (pg. 108, emphasis mine).
Days of my time could be spent addressing and correcting the many statements in this book attributed to my family and friends, as well as the situations described. There is a lot of selective memory, the taking of words and circumstances out of context, and flat-out embellishment, all while hiding behind the façade of “love.” It simply isn’t worth my time to sort through all of that, and I will not.
I’m surprised that a publishing company associated with a reputable university would publish a book where there are so many errors and assumptions. For example, Creech clearly doesn’t even know the people he wants to misrepresent well enough to refer to them by their correct names, and regardless of what he so righteously assumes, he doesn’t have a clue about their family relationships, their history of involvement in the church prior to his arrival, or the status of the family and friendly relationships with those who would call themselves homosexual. He is more interested in labeling them and trying to make them look like the minority, the “fringe,” and “subversive.” His many assumptions, “facts,” and recollections are sloppy, at best.
So, you may be asking, what prompted me to write about Creech’s book. To begin with, I think it is important for me to say that the ordeal that transpired at First United Methodist Church in Omaha upon Jimmy Creech’s appointment had a profound impact on my life. It changed me in wonderful ways of which I never could have fathomed.
Through this experience, my understanding of who Jesus is, as my Savior, was finally revealed to me. I had searched for this answer for quite some time, but the answers were not to be found in the social gospel to which I was exposed.
Through my searching of the Bible, discussions with Christians, and visits to biblically-sound churches during the turmoil my church was experiencing, I finally was able to see that Jesus was more than a “story” and a cultural preference. He became my living Savior, and the only One whose opinion really mattered. I developed a real, vital relationship with him that changed everything. Before, I knew “of” him. Now, I knew him.
I did not need to read this book for closure of any old, gaping wounds or to answer any questions I had about my own faith or point-of-view. My closure came a long time ago in the person of Jesus Christ, who brought me, and many of us who lived this experience, into a new life of salvation, deeper faith, and fellowship.
However, the fact that a book such as this was even written, and that the legitimate parts of the stories told about within it even transpired, is deeply troubling for the United Methodist Church.
Social justice is, without a doubt, very important. At the same time, it needs to be taken in context and with the entirety of what God has revealed in the Bible about sin, salvation, and redemption at heart. It seems as though, however, that a particular version of “social justice” has been allowed to consume the theology of many within the United Methodist Church.
There is some type of mental block for Creech and his supporters when it comes to understanding people who believe in the United Methodist stance on human sexuality, marriage, and homosexuality. We are not unenlightened, uneducated, or uncaring just because we do not agree with Jimmy Creech or his view of “social justice.” We are not bigoted, homophobic, abusive, or afraid of the “truth.” These types of statements and characterizations only show the desperation of those who want so badly to convince others to agree with them, that they will resort to personal insults and labels to do so.
While it is unfortunately true that there are many instances where people of the church have not treated each person’s need for redemption with the appropriate grace and sensitivity it deserves, that does not change God’s perspective on sin and redemption, and it takes nothing away from the work He can do in transforming lives.
Let me be clear. I do not write out of “love” for the United Methodist Church or for any particular denomination. Instead, I am motivated out of a deep concern for what has transpired and what continues to fester within one of the denominations in which God is still choosing to reach people whom He can call His own.
I have not been keeping an account over the past decade of names, what was said, or what was done to me, to my family, or to others I know. Frankly, I don’t care about that. I never did. It was far more important to the “opposition,” as Creech calls those from First United Methodist Church in Omaha who broke away during the ordeal that occurred there, to move forward and work positively for God and to be a part of where He is working to bring souls to salvation through Jesus Christ. That is our passion and our calling.
Living Faith United Methodist Church, which was born out of this struggle, has been richly blessed. My story of finding Jesus as the Savior is only one of many. Through this experience, some found their real faith for the first time, some renewed their faith, and others realized their need to contend for their faith. Our relationship with Jesus is more than just an hour spent on Sunday morning, as we strive to live up to the name we chose for our church.
We will gauge our success by how well we are planting the seeds for God to water and grow, not on how many members we have on our membership rolls. How can we force people to listen to God? All we can do is be faithful and provide the tools to allow that to happen.
Relevant Sunday school classes for all ages, Bible study groups, a fantastic VBS program written in-house that had every inch of our building bursting at the seams, are all signs of the vibrant life that the living Savior can bring to a church. As it says in Romans 8:28, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”
The United Methodist Church seems to be missing the point that a narrow version of the “gospel of social justice” alone isn’t working. It doesn’t have the power to change lives or conquer sin.
If the focus was on the Gospel of salvation, through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and it was put back at the heart of the United Methodist Church, wouldn’t more lives be changed? Is it not a red flag that the United Methodist Church bleeds members like an open wound? A watered-down gospel has sold more than a few souls down the river. Members will continue to be lost as they wisely look for the message that can transform their lives elsewhere.
Other than its sloppy portrayal of many of the events that transpired and comments that were made in regard to the events involving the ordeal at First United Methodist Church in Omaha, there were no surprises in Creech’s book for me. Instead, I was reminded once again of how important and absolutely imperative it is for the United Methodist Church to turn its eyes back upon the Jesus of the Bible, who can speak nothing but the truth. That truth will redeem the souls of all who are willing to hear and follow him and should never be watered-down, distorted, or silenced!
Diane West lives in Omaha, Nebraska, with her husband and two sons. She is a member of Living Faith United Methodist Church and is passionate about seeing Christ impact the lives of those within the United Methodist Church.
by Steve | Sep 27, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Jason Vickers
In 1963 E. R. Dodds, poet and personal friend of T. S. Eliot, as well as the Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford, gave a brilliant series of lectures at Queen’s University Belfast in Ireland. In his lectures, Dodds described the world of early Christianity as “an age of anxiety.” He depicted an age brimming with visions and dreams, as well as with asceticism and possession. In other words, the age of anxiety was also an age of prophecy.
But there was another side to Dodds’ account of early Christian history. If the age of anxiety gave rise to prophets and prophecy, then it also helped to create a drive for orthodoxy and order. Christians “were split into many warring sects, which had little or nothing in common save the name of Christian.” There was “as yet no authoritative Christian creed nor any fixed canon of Christian scripture.” Beginning in the third century, however, Christians became increasingly determined to mark off orthodoxy from heresy and to establish rules for ordering both their worship and their lives. Thus the age of anxiety was also an age of structure.
What was most compelling about Dodds’ account of early Christianity was the subtle way in which he kept the prophetic and the priestly structure in constant tension with one another. For example, Dodds told his audience of a second-century prophetess known by Tertullian to converse “with angels and sometimes even with the Lord,” and of children known by Cyprian to have “visions and auditions sent by the Holy Spirit, not only in sleep but in waking states of ekstasis.” But he also reminded them that the Holy Spirit whispered to Ignatius, “Do nothing without the Bishop.”
The Western church is presently immersed in yet another age of anxiety. It is characterized by pessimism and despair over the current state of the church and by uncertainty and fear about the church’s future.
However, our current situation is also like previous ages of anxiety in that it is teeming with prophetic figures who are promoting visions and dreams for the church and who are often critical of the church’s leadership. Not surprisingly, these prophetic figures, like their predecessors in ages past, frequently find themselves the target of criticism by “church dignitaries.” In other words, we are once again experiencing the tension between the prophetic and the priestly, or between prophecy and structure.
The primary problem that we face is one that arises anytime the church experiences a tension between prophecy and structure, namely, how to discern the person and work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church. As it turns out, this problem is two-sided. On the one side, there is a problem of discernment with respect to prophecy. Not everyone who claims to have a vision from God is a prophet. Like ancient Israel before it, the church has known its fair share of false prophets. At the same time, we would be wise to follow Irenaeus’ advice not to ban prophecy altogether simply because we have seen a false prophet or two.
On the other side, there is a problem of discernment with regard to the church’s structures. During times of extreme pessimism, uncertainty and fear, many people are tempted (partly by the influence and charisma of prophets) to set Spirit and structure wholly against one another. Yet it is far from clear that the Spirit is opposed to structure. On the contrary, we can make a good case that the church’s structures are themselves gifts of the Spirit to be received and cherished as means of grace through which we come to know and to love God.
To be sure, not everything that passes for structure is a gift for all seasons. Some charismata are clearly temporary in that the Spirit appears to have given them for a particular place and time in the life of the church. But other gifts, such as the sacraments, would seem to have a more enduring, even permanent place in the life of the church. In an age in which some are intimating that the Spirit may have withdrawn from certain ecclesial structures, we clearly need to develop an angle of vision from which we can work to identify the presence and work of the Spirit in and through the church’s structures.
The Present Age of Anxiety
Over the relatively short period of fifty years, a series of events has catapulted the Western church from the confident and at times exuberant optimism of the ecumenical movement in the 1960s to a deep and unsettling anxiety that began in the 1980s and that continues to the present day. Clergy, theologians, and other church leaders are clearly troubled about the current state and future of the church.
A quick survey of recent theological literature on the church confirms the diagnosis that we are living in an age of anxiety. For example, one prominent theologian recently declared that we are living in the ruins of the church. Another has announced the end of the church. And yet another has suggested that we are already living in a new dark age.
There are no fewer than eight developments that are fueling their anxiety.
1. Over the last fifty years, we have witnessed a steep decline in worship attendance and church membership in the West. Report after report has shown that local congregations and entire denominations in North America and western Europe are now in a statistical tailspin.
2. Over the last few decades, we have witnessed countless public scandals involving high-profile leaders.
3. Far from realizing the dreams of the ecumenical movement in the 1960s, we have witnessed numerous acrimonious disputes within denominations, some of which have resulted in church splits.
4. We have wrestled for several decades with the prospects of secularization. We have told ourselves repeatedly that the culture is increasingly secular, that there is a bias against religion in general and against Christianity in particular, and that Christendom is dead.
5. We have struggled with the extent to which Western culture now seems to revolve more around entertainment and recreation than religion. On this analysis, the problem is not that people are hardened atheists or secularists. They are simply finding it difficult consistently to make time for the church amidst their other commitments, including watching their favorite television shows, taking their kids to Sunday soccer leagues, attending professional sporting events, going to the movies, and a host of other weekend pleasures.
6. While we are worrying about secularization and the obsession with entertainment and recreation, we are also increasingly aware of the influence of other world religions in the West via globalization. We routinely hear that the church is losing “market share” to Islam, Zen Buddhism, and even to new religions. To complicate matters, we know that inclusivism and tolerance are now among the highest values in Western culture.
7. We are reluctantly beginning to acknowledge that the professionalization of the ministry has both assets and liabilities. After more than a century of commitment to higher theological education and to rigorous credentialing processes for clergy, we now see that we may have unwittingly discouraged the laity from active participation in the work of ministry.
8. Ironically enough, at the same time that the drive to professionalize the ministry was mandating that clergy become highly educated, religious literacy among the general population was plummeting. Studies have shown that, over the last fifty years, fewer and fewer people can name the four Gospels, not to mention the rest of the books of Scripture.
We could easily think of more reasons to be anxious about the current state and future of the church in the postmodern West. For example, we might add to the list the transformation of theology from a practical discipline intimately related to the sacramental life of the church to a speculative and scientific discipline struggling to meet the demands of the so-called “hard sciences” in the modern university. However, we have done enough to secure the point that we are living in an age of great anxiety. We must now turn our attention to a response.
The goal of church renewal
Most of us think about and advocate for church renewal because we are concerned about numeric decline in the worship attendance and church membership of our local congregations and denominations. This is perfectly understandable. Numeric decline is a real and growing concern. It is not primarily a matter of poor marketing. On the contrary, numeric decline suggests that we are not doing a good job with evangelism, catechesis, and discipleship. So we are in no way suggesting that we should simply ignore numeric decline.
The problem here has to do with nearsightedness. We see problems directly in front of us, but we rarely look further down the road. We do not take the time to think about what we really desire for the church over the long haul. We succumb to the tyranny of the urgent, doing whatever it takes to stave off further decline and, if possible, to increase worship attendance and church membership. In most cases, the formula for growth is simple enough. We freshen up our worship, we emphasize hospitality to the unchurched, and we work hard to create a warm and friendly environment.
Let us be clear. Clergy and laity should be worried about worship attendance and church membership. However, we need to address an even deeper issue. We need to put as much time and energy into thinking about why people should come to church as we do into thinking about how to get them to come. In other words, we need to think carefully about what the church actually has to offer people who come to worship or who become members. If we are not clear about why people will be better off for the trouble of getting out of bed on Sunday morning, then we may succeed in boosting attendance for a season, but we will fall short of the long-haul renewal that we so desperately need and desire.
In the postmodern West, people want to know more than how big the church is. They want to know whether the church has anything of substance to offer. They want to know whether the Christian God is impotent or indifferent. They want to know whether Christians are truly different; whether we are the called-out ones, sanctified and made perfect in love for God and ministry to one another and to the world. They want to know whether the church is a place of spiritual stagnation or genuine spiritual growth.
Aiming toward Perfect Ministry and Perfect Love
To speak of “perfect ministry” and “perfect love” as the goal of church renewal will no doubt strike some as hopelessly optimistic and unrealistic. We must be very careful to say that by perfect ministry and perfect love we do not mean that the church should advertise herself as a sinless or flawless community. Rather, perfect ministry and perfect love is the goal toward which the church strains. Indispensable to this straining is the ongoing work of mutual confession, repentance, and forgiveness. Indeed, the church will be about the business of perfect ministry and perfect love only when she becomes the kind of place where people feel free to tell the truth about themselves. Far from a sign of imperfection, humble repentance and forgiveness is a crucial part of perfect ministry and perfect love made possible by the presence and work of the Holy Spirit among the people of God.
Having said these things, what ought to set the church apart from the wider culture in which it is situated is a robust sense that we are not doomed perpetually to repeat our sins. We are not doomed perpetually to violate ourselves and those around us. We are not doomed to self-hatred or pride, to manipulation or victimhood. We are not doomed to selfishness, to greed, or to lust. We are not doomed to racism, sexism, and ethnocentrism. Thus while the church must provide time and space for humble repentance and for forgiveness, she must also make clear that she possesses powerful medicine by which we can be delivered from our violence and insanity, from our hostilities and insecurities, and from all forms of idolatry. So equipped, what we ought to desire in our efforts to renew the church is nothing less than the sanctification and perfecting of the people of God.
The perfecting of the church in ministry and love is not an abstract idea without shape or content. On the contrary, perfect ministry and perfect love are concrete in their manifestation. The Spirit sanctifies and perfects the church in and through the means of grace which the Spirit so generously makes available. Through the means of grace, including prayer, repentance, confession, fasting, worship, reading the Scriptures, the sacraments, and the like, the Holy Spirit creates divine graces in the people of God that they would not otherwise enjoy and for which they would not otherwise have a capacity.
While the church has described the divine graces that the Holy Spirit creates in her members in a variety of ways across the centuries, three ways of talking about them are especially worth mentioning. In and through the sacramental life of the church, the Holy Spirit forms in the church’s members three things: the mind of Christ, the theological virtues, and the fruits of the Spirit.
Through the formation of the mind of Christ, the Holy Spirit enables the church’s members to exhibit the attitudes and dispositions of a servant in their relationships to God, to one another, and to the world (Philippians 2). Rather than clinging to their lives, the church’s members are enabled by the Holy Spirit to give their lives away freely for the sake of others.
Through the formation of the theological virtues, the Holy Spirit enables the church’s members to exhibit faith, hope, and love in good times and bad (1 Corinthians 13). Instead of turning to cynicism and despair or to a politics of revenge, the Holy Spirit enables the church’s members to remain faithful unto death, to give the hopeless reason to hope, and to embody a politics of loving kindness toward friends and enemies alike.
In bringing about the fruits of the Spirit, the Holy Spirit enables the church’s members truly to display love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, kindness, and self-control toward one another and toward the world (Galatians 5).
When the mind of Christ, the theological virtues, and the fruits of the Spirit are manifest in the life of the church, people cannot help noticing. After all, life in the postmodern West is anything but loving and peaceful.
The truth is that we do not need more demographic or generational studies to figure out what people are looking for. In the midst of workplaces full of resentment and hostility, people are searching for love. Surrounded by anxiety and depression, people are looking for joy. Amid the violence and insanity of city streets and war-torn countries, people are searching high and low for peace. Faced with spouses and co-workers who lose their tempers at a moment’s notice, people are looking for self-control. Amid rampant road rage, people are in desperate need of patience. Against the backdrop that is the harshness and cruelty of the evening news, people will inevitably be drawn to churches that exhibit gentleness and kindness in every aspect of their lives. Over against the gospel of pervasive pessimism about human nature and human communities, people will be drawn to churches that proclaim and embody a gospel of transformation and holiness.
Conceived along these lines, the real question for the church is not whether we can get people to come to church in the first place. The real question is whether, upon coming, they will find compelling reasons to return time and time again.
People will not be drawn to and held captive by the church simply because it carefully preserves and maintains its long-standing structures. Nor will they be drawn to and held captive by the church simply because it is part of a prophetic movement aimed at renewal or reform. Rather, people will ultimately be drawn to and held captive by the church when they discover in the church something they cannot readily get anywhere else, namely, a community that embodies in readily discernible ways the mind of Christ, the theological virtues, and the fruits of the Spirit. In other words, they will be drawn to and held captive by those churches that bear the marks of incorporation into the Trinitarian life of God. Short of this, people may come to the church for a season, but they will ultimately look elsewhere for their salvation.
Adjusting strategies
If I am right about the changing sensibilities in the wider culture of the postmodern West, then we need to stop and ask ourselves whether it is time to adjust our strategies for reaching the culture around us. We need to ask ourselves whether first-time inquirers want to hear arguments in defense of the existence of God or self-flagellating apologies about the church’s complicity in social and structural evil. This is not to say that there is not a time and a place for such things. It is simply to suggest that visitors may now be looking for something more basic and fundamental, namely, to hear what the Holy Trinity is like and to see what difference the Holy Trinity has made in the lives of Christians. It is to suggest that we may now be living in a time in which people are longing to encounter the sacred and in which they are searching high and low for the holy.
If this reading of the culture is even half right, then the time has come for the church to regain her confidence that she really does have a gift of inestimable value to offer to the world—something that the world cannot readily acquire elsewhere, namely, incorporation into the Trinitarian life of God. For better or worse, this is the only gift that the church has ever had to offer to the world.
Accordingly, what ultimately matters with regard to prophetic movements and ecclesial structures is whether or not, with the help of the Holy Spirit, we can learn once again to receive and to appropriate them both not as ends in themselves, but as means of grace through which we can come to know and to love the Triune God. Whether or not the wider culture is ready to receive this gift is a matter that is open for debate. The fact remains that this is the only gift that the church has to offer. And even this she does not really have. Rather, she receives it anew and afresh each day from the Holy Spirit. Therein is the source of our hope for the future.
Jason E. Vickers is Associate Professor of Theology and Wesleyan Studies at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio. He is the author or editor of numerous books, including most recently The Cambridge Companion to John Wesley; Wesley: A Guide for the Perplexed; and Invocation and Assent: The Making and Remaking of Trinitarian Theology.
This essay is excerpted by permission from his new book Minding the Good Ground: A Theology of Church Renewal (Baylor).
by Steve | Jul 22, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Rob Renfroe
Within this edition of Good News you will find several articles describing and reacting to the trial of the Reverend Amy DeLong, a United Methodist elder that was recently brought before a church court in Wisconsin for (1) having performed a “holy union” for a same-gender couple and (2) being a self-avowed practicing homosexual. She was found guilty of the first charge, but not guilty of the second.
Representing the church’s case against DeLong were the Rev. Tom Lambrecht—a UM pastor in Wisconsin, a long-time Good News board member, and now on our staff as General Manager—and the Rev. Keith Boyette, a former attorney, a UM pastor in Virginia, and the current chairperson of Good News’ board of directors. Theirs was not an easy or pleasant task, but they fulfilled their duties admirably. I tell you that because I want you to know that no other group is doing more than Good News to defend The Book of Discipline, hold church officials accountable for enforcing the Discipline, and fight for the unity of the United Methodist Church.
The Good. The split decision is actually as good as we could have hoped for. Wisconsin is a very liberal Conference and the verdict of “guilty” on either charge was not a given. “Jury nullification” was a very real possibility. We can be gratified that the Rev. DeLong’s peers held her accountable (by a vote of 13-0) for breaking the Discipline when she officiated a “holy union” for a lesbian couple.
The reason she was found not guilty of being a self-avowed, practicing homosexual is twofold. First, whether through incompetence, neglect, or ignorance, before charges were brought against the Rev. DeLong, the officials of the Wisconsin Annual Conference did not ask the questions necessary to prove that she was a self-avowed practicing homosexual. Second, when asked those questions at her trial, she refused to answer. Hence, even though DeLong’s partnered relationship with another woman is well-known (they filed for domestic partnership in Wisconsin), the jury had no evidence before it to find her guilty on the second charge.
The Bad. Unfortunately, the penalty for Delong’s actions was a mere slap on the wrist. She has been suspended for twenty days and she must participate in a small group to discuss what she has done, write a report on her understanding of covenant-keeping, and present her thoughts to the Wisconsin Annual Conference.
What makes this “penalty” particularly disturbing is that the Rev. DeLong is neither remorseful nor repentant of her actions. “I’m excited,” she told the Associated Press after the trial. “I feel like I’ve been sentenced to write and teach, and that’s what I dedicated my ministry to anyhow. I’m always open to the opportunity to get people together and help us resolve our differences.”
Furthermore, she said before the penalty was determined that she would continue to perform same-gender marriages.
So, let’s get this straight. You knowingly and purposefully break the Church’s policies. You do so in a public way that creates pain to many faithful UM members—and no doubt will cause some to leave the Church. And asked if you would do it again, you respond affirmatively. And your penalty is to join a small group, write an essay, and enjoy a platform for espousing your views before your Annual Conference.
In no other institution in the world would we see such a ludicrous response. Secular or religious, every other organization that cares about its integrity would have said, “Thank you for your past service. You can gather your personal belongings, we will escort you to the door, and we wish you well in looking for future employment. Maybe you can find another company that will allow you to break its policies and embarrass it publicly simply because you believe you are more enlightened or more sincere than it is.”
At the very least, the Wisconsin court should have suspended the Rev. DeLong from pastoral ministry until she promised to abide by UM doctrine and policies. That was the modest and reasonable penalty proposed by the counsel of the Church.
Some who defend DeLong claim that for her marrying same-gender couples is an “act of conscience;” and, therefore, she should be given a light sentence. But what would become of UM pastors who as a matter of conscience refused to pay apportionments to support the General Board of Church and Society? Or as a matter of conscience re-baptized persons previously baptized as infants? Or who as a matter of conscience refused to work with ordained female clergy? In each of these cases, “conscience” would not be accepted as a valid excuse for breaking the church’s policies. And you can be sure, that persons continuing in these practices would be suspended and finally removed from the ministry.
But Amy DeLong gets a pass. Why? Because a liberal agenda in a liberal Conference trumps consistency and integrity.
The Ugly. Recently, hundreds of UM pastors have recently signed statements that they will perform same-gender marriages in the future—most notably in Minnesota, Northern Illinois, New York and New England. It’s possible that we will go through a time of massive ecclesiastical disobedience that will threaten our ability to live together as a united church.
Those who want to promote a pro-gay agenda contrary to the teachings of the Bible know they do not have the votes to change the official positions of the UM Church that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching and that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. We are the only mainline church that has maintained a scriptural position on these issues and the liberals know that they have little hope of changing our official stance any time soon.
They have also seen the Judicial Council continue to be faithful in its interpretation of the Discipline. The present Council has been given opportunities to liberalize some past decisions but has refused to do so. So what is left to those who want to change our positions is disobedience so rampant and so wide-spread that enforcement will become onerous and overwhelming.
We are entering a time of crisis. You have done your part. You have stood up for the truth of the Gospel, you have remained faithful in your local churches, and you have made the work of Good News possible with your prayers and your financial support.
It is now time for the Council of Bishops to do its part—and that is lead. Not after the fact, but before. It is time for every Bishop to sign a statement that he or she will enforce the Discipline regardless of how often it is disobeyed or how many pastors in his/her Conference breaks it.
What we do not need is another tepid, innocuous statement about holy conferencing and having a conversation. For 40 years we have engaged in the holy conferencing that is called General Conference; for 40 years we have listened to each other; and for 40 years delegates have been given the opportunity to vote their conscience. And that process will continue.
Breaking the covenant that holds us together is not holy conferencing—it is, in fact, the very antithesis of holy conferencing. It is disobedience—and disrespectful of the witness of a worldwide denomination, the Holy Scriptures, and the historic teaching of the Church. And if it is allowed to continue, we ourselves will discover the disastrous effects of living in a time when “each one did what was right in his own eyes.”
Those who are in positions of leadership need to understand that widespread homosexual marriages by UM pastors will cause so much damage to United Methodism that it may not be repairable. And it will be done on their watch.
History will record the actions of our Bishops— whether they stood for the integrity and the unity of the church and led in a way that prevented a church split or whether they were oblivious to the signs of the times and fiddled while the church burned.
Please join me in praying and believing that our Bishops will be the leaders we need them to be: proactive, courageous, and committed to the clear teachings of the Scriptures. The future of the church we love depends upon it.
Rob Renfroe is the President and Publisher of Good News.
by Steve | Jul 22, 2011 | Magazine Articles
By Heather Hahn
For the first time in 20 years, a conviction for performing a same-sex union has not resulted in a United Methodist elder’s defrocking or indefinite suspension.
Instead, after seven hours of deliberations, a jury of 13 United Methodist clergy voted 9-4 to suspend the Rev. Amy DeLong from her ministerial functions for 20 days beginning July 1, 2011.
The jury, which is called a trial court, also sentenced DeLong to a more detailed process for a year after her suspension to “restore the broken clergy covenant relationship.” At least seven votes from the trial court of five women and eight men were required to approve a penalty.
“I hope this signals to folks around the country and around the world that the United Methodists in Wisconsin aren’t going to throw their gay children out,” said a smiling DeLong, sitting beside her partner of 16 years, Val Zellmer.
“I hope that this is the dawning of a new day that can include openness for all people,” she added.
The church trial, which began June 21 and ended June 23, was in the basement fellowship hall of Peace United Methodist Church in Kaukauna, Wisconsin. DeLong was charged with violating the United Methodist Church’s ban on non-celibate, gay clergy and the prohibition against clergy officiating at same-sex unions.
The trial court acquitted her of being a “self-avowed practicing homosexual” by a vote of 12-1. The same panel unanimously found her guilty of violating the prohibition against conducting ceremonies celebrating same-gender unions.
DeLong, 44, has been a clergy member of the Wisconsin Annual Conference for 14 years and serves as director of Kairos CoMotion, an education and advocacy group on progressive theological issues. She did not deny that she is a lesbian. Her counsel, the Rev. Scott Campbell, argued successfully that church authorities had not proven she engaged in prohibited sexual activities.
Campbell is pastor of Harvard-Epworth United Methodist Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a member of the Reconciling Ministries Network, an unofficial caucus advocating for greater inclusion of gays and lesbians in the church.
DeLong acknowledged she officiated at the union of Carrie Johnson and Carolyn Larson on Sept. 19, 2009, in Menominee, Wisconsin. Both women testified on DeLong’s behalf.
Larson told reporters she thinks the penalty provides an “opportunity for Amy to help the church make some sweeping changes.”
Detailed penalty
There have been six similar trials over the past 20 years.
The Book of Discipline, the denomination’s law book, says all people are of sacred worth but states that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.”
The book bans “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” from being ordained or appointed to serve in the United Methodist Church. It also says that marriage is to be between a man and a woman and forbids United Methodist clergy from officiating at same-sex unions.
The Rev. Thomas Lambrecht, the counsel for the UM Church in the case, urged the jury to suspend DeLong indefinitely until she agreed in writing not to perform any more same-sex unions or the denomination’s law banning such unions is changed.
Lambrecht is pastor of Faith Community Church in Greenville, Wisconsin, and a board member of Good News, an unofficial evangelical caucus in the denomination. He began working for Good News in July.
The Rev. Greg Dell, now retired, faced a similar indefinite suspension in 1999 unless he agreed not to officiate at such unions. Dell refused, but the North Central Jurisdiction committee on appeals later amended the penalty to a one-year suspension.
DeLong, in her testimony during the trial’s penalty phase, said she would not make such a pledge. “Performing the holy union for the couple was one of the great joys of my ministry,” DeLong told reporters. “To sign such a document would say to the couple I married, ‘Your marriage is not valid.’”
The trial court did not explicitly require DeLong to decline future requests to officiate at same-sex unions, but it did instruct that she use her 20-day suspension as a period of spiritual discernment in preparation for a process of restoration.
The restoration process includes:
1. “Open and collaborative communication” between DeLong; Wisconsin Area Bishop Linda Lee; the Rev. Jorge Luis Mayorga Solis, the district superintendent who supervises DeLong, and the complainant in the case; the Rev. Richard Strait, chair of the Wisconsin Conference board of ordained ministry; and a Wisconsin United Methodist elder of DeLong’s choosing.
2. A written document initiated by DeLong that will outline procedures for clergy in order to help resolve issues that “harm the clergy covenant, create an adversarial spirit or lead to future clergy trials.” The document, the jury wrote, must be informed by the Bible, the 2008 Book of Discipline, Judicial Council rulings, and other relevant materials.
3. The first draft by DeLong in collaboration with the individuals named earlier is to be presented to the board of ordained ministry by January 1, 2012.
4. After review and editing by DeLong and the other designated church leaders, the final document is to be voted on in the clergy session of the 2012 Wisconsin Annual Conference.
The trial court added that failure to comply with their requirements will result in DeLong’s suspension from her ministerial functions for one year beginning June 3, 2012.
Lambrecht called the jury’s penalty “very creative.”
“It recognizes that there was a violation, in terms of offering suspension,” he said. “It creates a process that allows Rev. DeLong to reflect on this whole experience and to share some of what she has learned with the rest of the annual conference.”
The penalty, he added, “recognizes that there was harm done to the clergy covenant and that an adversarial spirit was created, and it asks her to reflect on ways to move forward that won’t lead to more church trials down the road.”
Like DeLong, Lambrecht expressed hope that the penalty portends “a positive thing for the future.”
Trial arguments
Leaders of the Wisconsin Annual (regional) Conference knew for more than a decade that the Rev. Amy DeLong was “a lesbian living in a loving, partnered relationship,” her counsel said in a pretrial statement on the morning of June 21, 2011.
In action and word, two bishops promised DeLong no charges would be forthcoming, said her counsel. Campbell contended that the church trial she was about to face was a violation of that promise and DeLong’s civil rights.
DeLong had acknowledged her lesbian partnership to Wisconsin conference leaders for more than a decade, Campbell said. She specifically told retired Bishop Sharon Z. Rader and current resident Bishop Linda Lee. “Because the church did not work in a timely manner, it cannot use what it has agreed to for many years to now cause her harm,” Campbell said.
“What is really at stake here is whether we as clergy will live in integrity under the terms of a covenant that we voluntarily agreed to,” the Rev. Thomas Lambrecht, the church’s counsel, told the jury in his opening statement.
“Rev. DeLong had the choice of living with integrity within the qualifications and requirements of our clergy covenant or of honorably withdrawing from that covenant when she found she could no longer live within it,” he said. “Instead Rev. DeLong has chosen to willfully violate the terms of our covenant and yet still seek to remain within it.”
Campbell said that DeLong does not dispute officiating at “a sacred service of covenant” for two women on Sept. 19, 2009. He argued that doing so was in keeping with the “highest laws” in the Book of Discipline, the denomination’s law book.
DeLong’s defense did not dispute that she is a lesbian and she has been with her partner, Val Zellmer, for 16 years. But, Campbell said, DeLong has never “self-avowed” to a bishop or district superintendent anything that happens in the privacy of her relationship.
“Some of this may feel like nit-picking to you, and I can understand that,” Campbell told the trial court. “We are forced into such conversation because of the way the law of our church defines homosexual relationships.”
The complaintant
The Rev. Jorge Mayorga Solis is the district superintendent overseeing the conference’s extension ministries and is DeLong’s supervisor.
Mayorga Solis testified that DeLong gave him documents that showed the same-sex union service at which she officiated was similar in wording and structure to the wedding service in the United Methodist Book of Worship. The ceremony included a blessing, vows, exchange of rings, lighting of unity candle, and introduction of the couple.
DeLong also told her district superintendent of her domestic partnership. In May 2010, Mayorga Solis issued a formal complaint against DeLong.
As her supervisor, he said, “it was my responsibility to do it.” He did so, he said, “with a heavy heart.” However, he testified that he thought the holy union and her domestic partnership were both violations of the Book of Discipline.
“My understanding is that it is something sacred,” Mayorga Solis said. “When we are ordained, I believe we enter into covenant to uphold church laws.”
DeLong’s testimony
When questioned, DeLong declined to answer repeated questions from the church’s counsel about whether her relationship included “genital sexual contact.”
DeLong’s counsel contended that church leaders had failed to establish before the trial that DeLong engaged in prohibited sexual activities.
“Val is the love of my life; I can’t imagine my life without her,” DeLong said when asked to describe her relationship with her partner. “I have committed myself to her, and she has committed to me. We make a lot of our heterosexual friends jealous because they would like a marriage as fine as ours.”
She balked at Lambrecht’s questions about her sexual activity, which he said he was reluctant to ask. DeLong said such questions should have been asked during the fact-finding investigation before the trial.
After about 15 minutes of consultation among both counsels and the trial’s presiding officer, retired Bishop Clay Lee Jr., Lambrecht posed the question one more time.
“While I don’t fully understand what the word self-avowed and practicing means, I do know when it feels like a forced avowal, and that is what this is feeling like,” DeLong said. “My answer is still I will never, to anybody who is trying to do me harm, talk about the intimate, private behavior of my partner and me.”
She did testify that she has called herself “a self-avowed practicing homosexual” because that is what Book of Discipline calls her.
Closing arguments
Lambrecht addressed DeLong’s refusal in earlier testimony to answer his questions about her sexual activity. The Book of Discipline, he pointed out, allows witnesses to decline answering a question at a church trial only if the answer would incriminate them under state or federal law or if that testimony is based on a confidential communication with a clergyperson. Neither situation was the case here, he said.
“Therefore, the church would argue that Amy’s refusal to answer the relevant questions entitles us to assume that her answers would be adverse to her case,” Lambrecht said.
DeLong’s counsel countered that while DeLong has long acknowledged that she is a lesbian, the church has not established that she has engaged in prohibited sexual practices. Campbell also argued that her blessing of a same-sex union was in accordance with the denomination’s social principles.
“She knew that the social principles of our church implore us not to reject our gay and lesbian members and friends,” he said. “And so she said yes.”
During the penalty phase of the trial, Campbell called on three people identified as experts on church law and ethics:the Rev. J. Philip Wogaman, retired pastor of Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington and former dean of Wesley Theological Seminary; the Rev. Tex Sample, retired professor of church and society at Saint Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, Mo.; and the Rev. Janet Wolf, an ordained elder in the Tennessee Annual (regional) Conference.
Wogaman, Sample, and Wolf have advocated for the denomination to change its position on homosexuality. In 2000, Sample and DeLong co-edited The Loyal Opposition: Struggling with the Church on Homosexuality.
Wogaman testified that he hoped the jury would consider proportion in determining DeLong’s penalty.
He said there are forms of homosexuality that are “incompatible with Christian teaching,” echoing the wording in the Book of Discipline. Specifically, he mentioned promiscuity as a problem.
The question in same-sex unions, he testified, should be whether the two people involved “are God’s grace to each other.”
“We probably have been prone to take too harsh an attitude in these cases,” Wogaman said.
Sample testified that the Book of Discipline is not comprehensive on sexual issues. He said that the church law book says nothing about polygamy, even though it is a practice that many African United Methodists are trying to combat in their communities.
“If you are going to think about penalty, I would ask you in the name of fairness to say to yourself that we are really coming down hard (on) the issue of homosexuality and same-sex practices in the West,” he said.
“But the church is not being evenhanded here when it comes to polygamy and those kinds of expressions, and I think that is a serious problem in the church…,” he said.
Wolf, who works on church reconciliation issues, testified that she hoped the trial court could consider “restorative rather than retributive justice” in determining DeLong’s penalty. She asked the jury to be creative in considering resolutions and even suggested DeLong might be asked to lead “listening circles” for people on various sides of the homosexuality debate.
Penalty closing arguments
The United Methodist Church’s counsel asked the jury to suspend the Rev. Amy DeLong indefinitely until she agrees in writing not to perform same-sex unions or the denomination’s law on such unions is changed.
“Contrary to the statements of some of those who testified…, this is not some insignificant violation of the terms of the Book of Discipline,” Lambrecht told the jury of 13 clergy in his closing statement.
He reiterated that at stake is the covenant all United Methodist elders make to uphold the Discipline and abide by its provisions.
Lambrecht pointed out that as the church’s representative, he was not asking for DeLong to be expelled from church membership, nor does he want to deprive her of her credentials or remove her as a clergy member of the Wisconsin Annual Conference.
“The church’s main interest in terms of a penalty is that the requirements of the Book of Discipline are honored and complied with,” he said. “We want to make sure that DeLong will conform her future behavior to the requirements of the Book of Discipline so we are not back here in the future.”
In his closing statement, DeLong’s counsel countered that the jury has full discretion to determine the penalty. He mentioned a recent nonbinding resolution recently approved at the Northern Illinois Annual Conference that calls for clergy to receive a 24-hour suspension if they officiate at a same-sex union.
In previous trials regarding same-sex unions, he said, the Book of Discipline had been used as a club.
“We seek to terrorize compassionate pastors into withholding blessings from those whom the Discipline calls them to serve,” Campbell said. “This is not right, dear friends.”
DeLong’s actions were “not a violation of covenant but the vindication of conscience,” he asserted, drawing murmurs of “Amen” from a crowd of many DeLong supporters.
After Campbell spoke, Lambrecht offered a rebuttal in which he told the jurors that they should consider the harm that will be done if they fail to adequately penalize DeLong. He said a lack of accountability will prompt some United Methodists to leave the church.
He also urged the jurors to keep in mind “our brothers and sisters in Africa, Latin America and other parts of the world.
“There is no disputing that becoming a more gay-affirming church would severely harm our church’s witness in other countries where our brothers and sisters are confronted with life-and-death circumstances in their conflict with radical Islam,” he declared.
Lambrecht also said only General Conference, the denomination’s top lawmaking body, has the authority to expand the church’s definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. General Conference, he noted, consistently has voted against such an expansion.
Passionate dispute
The trial was the latest development in a longtime dispute within the United Methodist Church. Only General Conference, the denomination’s top lawmaking assembly, can change the Book of Discipline.
The subject of homosexuality has sparked discussion at every session of the quadrennial General Conference since 1972. Delegates consistently have voted to keep the restrictions.
The church’s division on the issue was evident during the DeLong jury selection.
The presiding officer, retired Bishop Clay Foster Lee Jr., asked all potential jurors whether any prejudice, bias, or opinion would prevent them from fairly applying the law in this case.
“I don’t know how one fairly applies an unfair law,” one said. Another announced strong support for the denomination’s stand on homosexuality.
Fifteen of twenty-three prospective jurors expressed reservations. Lee dismissed anyone who expressed strong opinions one way or the other.
Neither Lambrecht nor Campbell could say what the unusual penalty means for the 2012 General Conference.
Lambrecht expressed confidence that the church’s laws on homosexuality would be upheld. He noted that the next General Conference will include more delegates from outside the United States—particularly from Africa, where delegates tend to be more supportive of the denomination’s standards than their U.S. counterparts.
Campbell speculated that the verdict and penalty could affect General Conference discussions in various ways.
“There may be some who move to tighten laws,” he said. “There may be others who recognize that the time has come for us to stop trying to deal legalistically with matters of the heart, the spirit, and the soul.”
Singing with one voice.
DeLong’s trial drew more than 100 supporters, including some from as far away as Massachusetts and Oregon. They began and ended each day with prayer and singing.
While the jury deliberated on the penalty, the crowd of mostly DeLong supporters and a handful of those who support maintaining the church’s stance on homosexuality sang hymns and folk songs together. The presiding officer joined in some of the hymns.
The Rev. Ethan Larson, pastor of two United Methodist churches near Viroqua, Wisconsin, said before the penalty was announced that he thought DeLong should be under suspension “until she is willing to abide by the Book of Discipline.”
Larson is the president of the Wisconsin Association of Confessing United Methodists, an unofficial evangelical group in the denomination that advocates keeping the current stance on homosexuality. He said that he did not know DeLong well but the two usually spoke to each other at gatherings.
Larson said the split verdict “came down the way it should,” given the limited information the church’s counsel was able to present in making the case. However, he found the arguments by DeLong’s defense team frustrating.
“To me, it felt as if verbal games were being played,” he said. “It was like ‘tag you’re it,’ but I wasn’t ‘it’ to begin with.”
Wisconsin’s Bishop Linda Lee said in a statement after the penalty was announced that a trial is a heart-wrenching and painful process. “Yet, we have hope because of our common faith in Jesus Christ, and trust that some growth and good can come from this,” she said.
“There continue to be difficult questions with no ready answers as we face the months between now and General Conference in 2012. My prayer is that, as Christians, and as United Methodists, we will use this experience as a gateway to reconciliation, healing and restoration of our relationship with one another and with Christ.”
Heather Hahn is a multimedia news reporter for United Methodist News Service.
by Steve | Jul 22, 2011 | Magazine Articles
Commentary by Karen Booth
In 2004, I wrote a column for The United Methodist Reporter entitled, “What I Would Say to Karen Dammann.” A church trial court had just acquitted her of being a “self-avowed, practicing homosexual,” and someone had asked me what I would say if given the opportunity to talk with her.
First, I decided I would emphasize what we agreed on—that God loves her. I would also want her to know that though I strongly disagreed with her behavioral choices, I did not doubt her professed faith in Christ. Even so, I would encourage her to complete the process of sexual sanctification, to forsake sin and pursue purity. Finally, I would express my profound sorrow that the UM Church offered her little to help in that effort, whether through resources, trained leadership, or local church ministries.
I was pretty naïve back then. I had been serving as the executive director of Transforming Congregations (www.transcong.org) for less than a year and I had not observed our pro-gay activists in action. I had not experienced their in-your-face “witness” at two contentious General Conferences or struggled to make sense of their non-Biblical reasoning during legislative sessions. I had not observed their media manipulation of the Beth Stroud trial and appeals, or mourned over their mistreatment of the Rev. Ed Johnson because he had taken a stand for the truth. I did not know how well they fit the description given to them on the Soulforce website: “relentless.” Unfortunately, I am much more cynical now.
Fast forward to my onsite observation of the church trial of another lesbian pastor, the Rev. Amy DeLong. Since its lay and clergy members had voted for Wisconsin to become a “Reconciling” Annual Conference in 1996, I didn’t expect it to be a level playing field. And DeLong’s defense team did not disappoint. They combined her evasive non-answers regarding her sexual practices with her partner with her counsel’s legalistic loopholes. The “not guilty” verdict on the charge of being a “self-avowed, practicing homosexual” was almost a foregone conclusion. It was not surprising that her counsel argued that she was being tried for “who she was” rather than for what she had done. Even though national surveys have proven otherwise, DeLong’s counsel apparently accepts the cultural notion that same-sex attraction inevitably leads to lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity.
According to The Social Organization of Sexuality edited by Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels, while 6.2 percent of men and 4.4 percent of women reported experiencing an attraction for the same sex or gender at some time in their life, only 2 percent of men and less than 1 percent of women defined that as having a homosexual orientation or went on to adopt a gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity. (More information about the “three-tier distinction” between attraction, orientation, and identity can be found in Dr. Mark Yarhouse’s book Homosexuality and the Christian.)
But the many individuals who (for lack of a better term) identify themselves as “ex-gay” tell a different story. The above-mentioned surveys indicate that they are the rule rather than the exception. But their voices have been silenced within the denomination and their journeys of sexual sanctification have been ignored or hindered by our singular focus on the policy battles. These individuals would have much to teach anyone struggling with same-sex attraction. And they have much to teach the church, too, about confronting and overcoming sin, about trusting in God’s providential love and healing, about sacrificing self-desire for the greater good, and about becoming a new creation, with an entirely new identity, through faith in Jesus Christ. All it would take is really open hearts, doors and minds!
DeLong’s web site is inappropriately named “Love on Trial.” It should have been called “Integrity on Trial,” because that was what was actually at stake. In addition to personal integrity, the trial spotlighted the integrity of the Wisconsin Annual Conference. Apparently there are leaders who “winked at” DeLong’s lesbian relationship for a long time. Through the penalty process, all her ministerial colleagues have been given the opportunity to rectify that oversight when they discuss, approve or reject her final writing project at next summer’s clergy session. If those leaders who are called to supervise her suspension and written assignment do so in a way that is faithful to authorized United Methodist policy and teaching about human sexuality, and if the Rev. DeLong is helped in that process to comprehend the pain and turmoil her actions have caused throughout our worldwide connection, then true, Biblical restoration could actually occur.
The day before the trial, my devotions included Psalm 37 in which believers are told three times “do not fret.” The psalmist reminds us to be still and have faith in the Lord, commit your way to Him, do good, and refrain from anger and wrath. “Then it will be as clear as the noonday sun that you were right” (Psalm 37:6, Contemporary English Version). I choose to believe that.
Today, I would still say the same things to Amy DeLong that I wanted to say to Karen Dammann many years ago. “God loves you, but does not love what you do. Through your faith, He gives you the power to be sanctified sexually, to turn from sin and experience new and full life. And though the UM Church still is not prepared to help you, I can point you to those who can. The choice, finally, is yours.”
Karen Booth is the executive director of Transforming Congregations. She is an ordained elder in the Peninsula-Delaware Annual Conference. Prior to her appointment to Transforming Congregations in 2003, she served as a local pastor in Delaware for 17 years. She graduated with honors from The Drew Theological School and has been married for 23 years to husband, Randy, who is pastor at Monroe UM Church in Monroe, Wisconsin. Her upcoming book project, Remembering How to Blush: Restoring Sexual Virtue in the Culturally Compromised Church, is scheduled to be published by Bristol House next spring.
