Bishop Mark Webb
Upper New York Episcopal Area
The United Methodist Church
324 University Ave., 3rd Floor
Syracuse, NY 13210
Dear Bishop Webb:
It is with deep sadness that I write this letter, for it
seems incredible to me that after a lifetime of struggling for civil rights,
the Church I have tried to serve is still in the place of denying fundamental
human rights to persons having a minority sexual orientation.
It surely requires no explanation, for it is commonplace to
suppose, that sexual orientation is not chosen by individuals. I did not choose to be “straight,” and it was
not virtuous of me to find myself inclined to be heterosexual. Nor is it lacking in virtue for homosexual friends
to be inclined to be gay. Nor is it
morally or otherwise peculiar for any of us to express responsibly our given
orientation, including the very human desire to be sexually intimate with a
chosen partner. To me, the above
assumptions seem obvious in our time—when sexual orientation has been for many
decades researched by our society’s experts in psychology and counseling, and
determined with virtual unanimity to be
a way of being that is discovered, not chosen.
Society’s opinion was not always thus. But for a considerable period of time that
conclusion has been endorsed by all of the relevant professional organizations
representing our society’s chief practitioners of the counseling and healing
arts.
I was in attendance at the 1972 General Conference, as a
young pastor, volunteering as an usher.
That was a landmark General Conference, for (as far as I can determine)
it was the first such event in which the word “homosexual” entered the United
Methodist lexicon. A committee appointed
by the uniting conference in 1968 (or its follow-on event in 1970) brought to
the 1972 Conference a proposed new Statement of Social Principles. Unlike the previous Methodist Social
Principles, this proposal included mention of “homosexual persons” who it said
were “entitled to the guidance and ministry of the church in their search for
fulfillment.” (I am operating from
memory, but I think those words are pretty close to the ones printed.” At the last hour of the last day of that
event—if my memory is correct—the new Social Principles statement was under
discussion. A caucus from somewhere
suddenly surfaced with an amendment:
“However, we do not condone the practice of homosexuality, and consider
it incompatible with Christian teaching.”
Forty-one years ago, a large segment of the United Methodist
Church had had no experience whatsoever in talking about, or really thinking
much about, homosexual orientation. For
the forty years since that event, the UMC has talked about it quite
considerably. I hoped, when I went to
General Conference last year in Tampa, FL, that after forty years in the desert
of misinformation and prejudice, we might emerge into the Promised Land of
genuine mutuality and more informed, more compassionate respect, and more
justice. But not even a compromise
statement of “agreeing to disagree” was allowed to pass—such was the control of
an anti-intellectual, anti-gay alliance of church leaders from regions of the
U.S. and elsewhere which have been saturated in bias.
When our Church is confronted with such misinformed
prejudice, what is a conscientious pastor to do—especially when s/he has
promised the children in her/his care that they will always be treated as
children of God? Can it be the
conscientious practice of our denomination to accept the (supposed) rule of
“law” embodied in deeply prejudicial print, even when that “law” violates the
dignity and rights of children of God?
As a pastor, I have found that a bitter fruit. It is not only bitter to my particular taste,
but that fruit is bitter to “the least of these” and therefore treasonous to
the gospel of Jesus. The policies of my
denomination, The United Methodist Church, violate the dignity of God’s
children. No one chooses his or her
sexual orientation. If we arbitrarily
discriminate against those of a minority orientation, we commit exactly the
same sin that we commit when a racial minority is relegated to an inferior or
less advantaged status. That is why
Archbishop Desmond Tutu has said he “would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven”
and “would not worship a God who is homophobic.” He says, referring to the campaign for gay
and lesbian rights: “I am as passionate
about this campaign as I ever was about apartheid. For me, it is at the same level.”
When I went to Selma, Alabama, as a first year seminarian
(in March, 1965) to speak with my body about the dignity of African Americans
and the universal right to vote, I really did not comprehend the measure of
deprivation caused my neighbors by racial prejudice. I feel certain, today, that I still do not
comprehend the deprivation of dignity inflicted upon young (and older) people
when they realize their sexual orientation is not “acceptable” to some of their
supposed friends and family members. I
do know that, in at least one instance, a father has put a gun on the coffee
table when his son “came out” to him, suggesting the son use it to commit
suicide.
For me, it is not “optional” for the Church of Jesus Christ
to proclaim the universal grace of God, and the equality of all people—including
the equal right to form respected, sacred unions and in such unions to receive
the blessing of the God we worship.
I therefore struggle to understand how a United Methodist
pastor can be “brought up on charges” for violating a law which, by any
reasonable contemporary standard, could never be deemed Christian. I believe it is the duty of Christians to
oppose unloving laws, not to obey them.
I believe it is the duty of pastors to stand by those oppressed, and to
offer them sustenance and spiritual nurture—the bread of life, and not a stone
of rejection.
My hope would be that you will decide not to order a trial
for the Rev. Steve Heiss, refusing to do so on the grounds of your conscience.
Yours in the peace of Christ,
(The Rev.) Gary E. Doupe, retired pastor
Upper New York Annual Conference
No comments:
Post a Comment