Today's post is by E. Julu Swen. Mr. Swen is a journalist and United Methodist from Liberia. An original version of the piece appeared on the author's personal blog. It is used with permission.
The world was rocked a few years ago by the comments of Pope Francis of the Catholic Church and retired Archbishop Bishop Desmond Tutu of the Anglican Church in South Africa in support of gay and lesbian communities. In their separate comments, each clergyman supported the fact that the constituents of these communities have legitimate rights to God's Kingdom and said that he was in no way going to serve as a barrier to any of these people in their attempt to seek entrance to God's Kingdom. Bishop Desmond Tutu said, “God should allow gay people into heaven,” while Pope Francis said, 'If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge them?”
Surely, these comments were too hard for any soft-headed Christian to take lightly, especially coming from Pope Francis and Bishop Tutu, two great Christians, if I may put it that way.
In Liberia and in the social media (Facebook) there were several comments about the truthfulness of Bishop Tutu's Christian stance on the gay issue. “The Bishop is not a Christian,” one comment read. As I read through the various comments, I was tempted to ask whether these people were now taking the place of God, to be condemning other individuals for their failings to follow God's instruction of righteous living instead of leaving that assignment to God.
I did not see similar comments on the pronouncement of Pope Francis simply because it was not on the social media (Facebook) or not on my page. With the millions of Catholics around world and the numbers of sexual abuse cases haunting the Catholic Church, eggs would have been thrown at the Pope or even at television sets if his congregations were watching around the world. As a matter of fact, thank God Pope Francis made the comment on the plane after a well-attended meeting in Brazil. Had he made the statement in one of those gathering in Brazil, he would have lost more than half his audience.
I strongly think that these two outstanding men are not alone in their thoughts and beliefs. As a matter of fact, I want to share in their stance on the issue of the rights of gay and lesbian communities. There are several institutions and documentation that support these positions. Additionally, I am sure it is not the place of any one person to condemn another for a decision that rests purely with God.
I read that Bishop Tutu's comments were in opposition to the decision of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe who threatened to “chop off the heads of gays & lesbians in his country.” As if there were not too many criminal activities in that part of the African continent or on the continent as a whole, why would any leader want to kill his people just because of their choice of life? How many gallows are there for the armed robbers, drug pushers and users, sex offenders, and all the various kinds of trafficking and traffickers? Oh, maybe African leaders, especially in those countries where there are laws against gay and lesbian practice, are getting kickbacks from the other criminal activities, which they are not getting from the gay and lesbian people.
"I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this" Bishop Tutu said in his support of gay rights, something largely shunned and frowned upon on the African continent. Yet a lot of Africans, myself included, are not made destitute by the gay and lesbian people, but rather by the individuals who preside over our nations as presidents, lawmakers, and judges. These are the people we should shun, instead of the tiniest minority whose orientation is different from ours.
As I rumble through these classic statements (my description) of these two great Christians, especially, Bishop Tutu's, I realize that individuals with different sexual orientation have a place in God's Kingdom once they are transformed by God Himself. I am not certain that Bishop Tutu would want sinners and their sins in heaven, just as the Pope Francis would not want to interact with people who practice homosexual acts, unlike those with homosexual orientation. For example, Pope Francis stated, “There is a Catholic teaching that separates those with homosexual orientation from those who practice homosexual acts.” According to the Pope, the orientation is not sin; it is the act that is considered sinful.
I think the retired Archbishop Tutu's desire to be in heaven with gay people is rooted in the scriptures. “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (I Corinthians 6:9-11).
This is where I share in Bishop Tutu's comment. If the Apostle Paul can recognize the already washed people of God with their former identity, who is the Bishop to think that gay people will not be in heaven? The logical content of the Bishop's comment gets my strongest support.
I would not have agreed with Pope Francis more if I had not read what the Scriptures said about God's position on these matters. As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” (Romans 9:13-16).
For example, the Pope admitted that there is “a lot written about the gay lobby in the Vatican, but I still have not seen anyone in the Vatican with an identity card saying they are gay.” The same is true about all the religious institutions (especially churches) in the world. We all go to church with some kind of sin under our sleeves or with someone we know is living a sinful life. Surely, we don't stop going because of that reason. We either talk them into changing or pray for them to change; and gays and lesbians are included.
The United Methodist Church Book of Discipline states, “The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God's grace is available to all. We will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons” (BOD para. 161, The Nurturing Community).
Based on all these documentations and others that I cannot cite in this piece, I share in and support the stance of these two great men who in my lifetime have presided over and are still presiding over large Christian communities in the world. I strongly believe that there is room for more at the Cross of Jesus and this includes washed and transformed gay and lesbian people. As a matter of fact, the UMC Book of Discipline states that “the grace of God is available to all”; and in my judgment, that grace can only be found in God’s house, the Church.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Showing posts with label E. Julu Swen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label E. Julu Swen. Show all posts
Friday, April 27, 2018
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
E. Julu Swen: General Conference 2016 - The Gathering That May Divide or Unite The United Methodist Church
Today's piece is written by E. Julu Swen. Mr. Swen is a United Methodist layman and blogs at http://www.westafricanwriters.org/
In two weeks, the United Methodist Church’s top legislative body will be meeting at the Oregon Convention Center, the largest convention center in the Pacific Northwest, from May 10 to 20, 2016. The top policymaking body of The United Methodist Church, which meets once every four years and is dubbed the General Conference, makes and revises church laws as well as adopting resolutions on moral, social, economic and all other public policy-related issues that impact the lives of United Methodists and humanity. Among many things, the General Conference also approves plans and budgets for church-wide programs. This time around, the General Conference 2016 is faced with several challenges, starting with the long-standing issue on human sexuality.
Talk to any African delegate to the General Conference 2016 and one of the first things he/she will do is express a strong opinion on the issue of human sexuality. Yet these delegates will find millions of excuses to justify other “immoral conduct” that permeate the fabric of the church in Africa. And to some extent, compounding the issue, they will find a way to blame it on their western partners. For example, in Liberia the issue of divorce raised to the level of immorality was debated for several years until it was upheld as a legislative action and used by the church in the nomination process of its candidates for the bishopric. The “divorce legislation,” according to proponents, dates back to 1968, much older than the human sexuality debate which has been part of every General Conference since 1972.
For the first time in the history of the General Conference, African delegates to the General Conference 2016 have been touring the globe in preparation for the Oregon gathering. Three sites in all—two in Africa and one in the Middle East hosted these gatherings. By all indications, the African delegation will be in the United States of America one week prior to the date of UMCGC 2016. In addition to the pre-General Conference gathering in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire, which was sponsored by the organizers of the General Conference 2016, selected members of the African delegation have participated in two separate continental meetings, one in Africa and one in the Middle East. Technically, the Abidjan meeting was official, but the other two were about church politics. Until these meetings, the one and only meeting of such nature was in 2012 when the news about “Plan B” reached the African delegates and a “Prayer Summit” was organized in Monrovia, Liberia, for the formation of a united voice among African delegates to Tampa, Florida. The objective of the Monrovia meeting was to vote against “Plan B,” or any decision that would threaten the unity of the church.
At the moment, several legislative proposals, ranging from “agency budget cuts to reduction in the episcopal tenure or possible episcopal reelection,” are on their way to the General Conference 2016. Easily endorsed by African delegates will be the “reduction in episcopal tenure,” while they will serve as followers on the “agencies budget cuts” because of their (UMC Africa) limitation in contributing to the general church-wide budget. As we say in Liberia, “you put your mouth where your money is.”
Similarly, other legislations such as Rule 44, otherwise referred to as “Christian Conferencing,” and the “Boycott Diverts Sanctions on Israel,” also referred to as “BDS,” stand as hurdles for the General Conference 2016. The legislative positions have stirred serious debates between proponents and opponents. Each group will be relying on the African delegates in making sure specific, individual legislation go through. However, if shuttling around the world under sponsorship is all to it, then those who financed all those trips for the African delegates are sure of enough votes, except on the issue of human sexuality. For them, discussing human sexuality is like making room for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer or questioning persons,” abbreviated as LGBTQ in the life of the church. All other considerations aside, the African delegates and some other delegates to the General Conference 2016 are judging human sexuality from the perspectives of morality and immorality.
In his commentary on the Liberia Annual Conference's “divorce legislation,” Darryl W. Stephens thinks the divorce legislation should be part of the many legislative proposals that are coming to the General Conference 2016. Stephens noted that the action of the Liberia Annual Conference on divorce bordered on cultural issues that cut across the connection, especially among clergy. He strengthened his discussion by reminding all of us in the connection of the now-outdated rules that protected the moral standing of the church in the society. He also noted that as recent as the 1968 Book of Discipline, The United Methodist Church declared, “The Church does not sanction or condone divorce except on the ground of adultery.”
If Stephens is right at all, then the laws of the United States of America are about to do yet further damage to the rules of the United Methodist Church just like they did when they introduced the “no-fault divorce laws” which helped the Methodist prohibitions against divorce disappear from the General Discipline. Already, conferences, churches, and individuals especially in the United States of America are now challenging the long-standing rule of the church which restricts self-avowing “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer or questioning persons” members from active ministerial roles. For example, the New York Conference’s board of ordained ministry announced on March 1, 2016 that it would not consider sexual orientation in evaluating a clergy candidate, even if that individual has a spouse of the same gender.
Before the Supreme Court decision approving “same-sex” marriage in the USA, the administrative arm of the United Methodist Church, the Connectional Table, in a vote of 26 to 10 with one abstention, approved legislation that would remove prohibitive language from the Book of Discipline—language that makes it a chargeable offense under church law for clergy to be “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” or to officiate at same-sex weddings. Although the legislation is pending actions by the General Conference 2016, the Connectional Table and the Supreme Court decisions do not resonate well with many Africans, especially United Methodists, some of whom may now be on their way to Oregon.
The United Methodist Church is teetering on the brink of a split because most of the United Methodist Churches in Africa, along with some in the USA and elsewhere, will not buy into the “Christian Conferencing” concept of their western partners if the only outcome is to make room for LGBTQ in pastoral ministry. Bishop Christian Alsted was right when he indicated that “any preconceived concept must be put aside if it prevents delegates from listening to each other.” In Oregon, several concepts will actually prevent delegates from listening to each other. For most Africans, it will be human sexuality; for some in the USA and the Middle East it may be budget cuts for those heading agencies and the issue of Israeli/Palestinian peacemaking. Surely, listening to each other will be critical in Portland, Oregon.
We are all aware of many attempts throughout the history of the church to close doors. There have always been ways that the church doors have been closed, but we hope that the African church does not close door of the church to LGBTQ people. Divorce doesn't bar someone from being involved with the life and ministry of a local church, nor from a relationship with the loving and forgiving Jesus. In Liberia, it only bars one from episcopal election. That's all. Divorced people are welcome at the table of grace set by Jesus. We in Africa could do better to make sure that the table is a welcoming table to all of God's children. We should recognize that in the US at one time we from Africa were not welcome inside the doors of Methodist Churches. This has changed as society came to the recognition that all people are children of God, though there are many churches today in the US that would not accept a pastor from Liberia or other African countries in its pulpit. While we may disagree on human sexuality, we should always agree wholeheartedly and together that the table set by Jesus is one open to all.
Whatever challenges await the General Conference 2016 in Oregon, heeding the warning of Bishop Alsted of the Nordic and Baltic Area will make us leave The United Methodist Church whole or a fragmented church. As he puts it, “Discerning God’s way for our denomination must be a shared desire and shared responsibility. We must keep an open mind and listen for God’s guidance.” Whether we hear God differently, keeping the unity of The United Methodist Church should reign supreme among conference delegates.
In two weeks, the United Methodist Church’s top legislative body will be meeting at the Oregon Convention Center, the largest convention center in the Pacific Northwest, from May 10 to 20, 2016. The top policymaking body of The United Methodist Church, which meets once every four years and is dubbed the General Conference, makes and revises church laws as well as adopting resolutions on moral, social, economic and all other public policy-related issues that impact the lives of United Methodists and humanity. Among many things, the General Conference also approves plans and budgets for church-wide programs. This time around, the General Conference 2016 is faced with several challenges, starting with the long-standing issue on human sexuality.
Talk to any African delegate to the General Conference 2016 and one of the first things he/she will do is express a strong opinion on the issue of human sexuality. Yet these delegates will find millions of excuses to justify other “immoral conduct” that permeate the fabric of the church in Africa. And to some extent, compounding the issue, they will find a way to blame it on their western partners. For example, in Liberia the issue of divorce raised to the level of immorality was debated for several years until it was upheld as a legislative action and used by the church in the nomination process of its candidates for the bishopric. The “divorce legislation,” according to proponents, dates back to 1968, much older than the human sexuality debate which has been part of every General Conference since 1972.
For the first time in the history of the General Conference, African delegates to the General Conference 2016 have been touring the globe in preparation for the Oregon gathering. Three sites in all—two in Africa and one in the Middle East hosted these gatherings. By all indications, the African delegation will be in the United States of America one week prior to the date of UMCGC 2016. In addition to the pre-General Conference gathering in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire, which was sponsored by the organizers of the General Conference 2016, selected members of the African delegation have participated in two separate continental meetings, one in Africa and one in the Middle East. Technically, the Abidjan meeting was official, but the other two were about church politics. Until these meetings, the one and only meeting of such nature was in 2012 when the news about “Plan B” reached the African delegates and a “Prayer Summit” was organized in Monrovia, Liberia, for the formation of a united voice among African delegates to Tampa, Florida. The objective of the Monrovia meeting was to vote against “Plan B,” or any decision that would threaten the unity of the church.
At the moment, several legislative proposals, ranging from “agency budget cuts to reduction in the episcopal tenure or possible episcopal reelection,” are on their way to the General Conference 2016. Easily endorsed by African delegates will be the “reduction in episcopal tenure,” while they will serve as followers on the “agencies budget cuts” because of their (UMC Africa) limitation in contributing to the general church-wide budget. As we say in Liberia, “you put your mouth where your money is.”
Similarly, other legislations such as Rule 44, otherwise referred to as “Christian Conferencing,” and the “Boycott Diverts Sanctions on Israel,” also referred to as “BDS,” stand as hurdles for the General Conference 2016. The legislative positions have stirred serious debates between proponents and opponents. Each group will be relying on the African delegates in making sure specific, individual legislation go through. However, if shuttling around the world under sponsorship is all to it, then those who financed all those trips for the African delegates are sure of enough votes, except on the issue of human sexuality. For them, discussing human sexuality is like making room for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer or questioning persons,” abbreviated as LGBTQ in the life of the church. All other considerations aside, the African delegates and some other delegates to the General Conference 2016 are judging human sexuality from the perspectives of morality and immorality.
In his commentary on the Liberia Annual Conference's “divorce legislation,” Darryl W. Stephens thinks the divorce legislation should be part of the many legislative proposals that are coming to the General Conference 2016. Stephens noted that the action of the Liberia Annual Conference on divorce bordered on cultural issues that cut across the connection, especially among clergy. He strengthened his discussion by reminding all of us in the connection of the now-outdated rules that protected the moral standing of the church in the society. He also noted that as recent as the 1968 Book of Discipline, The United Methodist Church declared, “The Church does not sanction or condone divorce except on the ground of adultery.”
If Stephens is right at all, then the laws of the United States of America are about to do yet further damage to the rules of the United Methodist Church just like they did when they introduced the “no-fault divorce laws” which helped the Methodist prohibitions against divorce disappear from the General Discipline. Already, conferences, churches, and individuals especially in the United States of America are now challenging the long-standing rule of the church which restricts self-avowing “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer or questioning persons” members from active ministerial roles. For example, the New York Conference’s board of ordained ministry announced on March 1, 2016 that it would not consider sexual orientation in evaluating a clergy candidate, even if that individual has a spouse of the same gender.
Before the Supreme Court decision approving “same-sex” marriage in the USA, the administrative arm of the United Methodist Church, the Connectional Table, in a vote of 26 to 10 with one abstention, approved legislation that would remove prohibitive language from the Book of Discipline—language that makes it a chargeable offense under church law for clergy to be “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” or to officiate at same-sex weddings. Although the legislation is pending actions by the General Conference 2016, the Connectional Table and the Supreme Court decisions do not resonate well with many Africans, especially United Methodists, some of whom may now be on their way to Oregon.
The United Methodist Church is teetering on the brink of a split because most of the United Methodist Churches in Africa, along with some in the USA and elsewhere, will not buy into the “Christian Conferencing” concept of their western partners if the only outcome is to make room for LGBTQ in pastoral ministry. Bishop Christian Alsted was right when he indicated that “any preconceived concept must be put aside if it prevents delegates from listening to each other.” In Oregon, several concepts will actually prevent delegates from listening to each other. For most Africans, it will be human sexuality; for some in the USA and the Middle East it may be budget cuts for those heading agencies and the issue of Israeli/Palestinian peacemaking. Surely, listening to each other will be critical in Portland, Oregon.
We are all aware of many attempts throughout the history of the church to close doors. There have always been ways that the church doors have been closed, but we hope that the African church does not close door of the church to LGBTQ people. Divorce doesn't bar someone from being involved with the life and ministry of a local church, nor from a relationship with the loving and forgiving Jesus. In Liberia, it only bars one from episcopal election. That's all. Divorced people are welcome at the table of grace set by Jesus. We in Africa could do better to make sure that the table is a welcoming table to all of God's children. We should recognize that in the US at one time we from Africa were not welcome inside the doors of Methodist Churches. This has changed as society came to the recognition that all people are children of God, though there are many churches today in the US that would not accept a pastor from Liberia or other African countries in its pulpit. While we may disagree on human sexuality, we should always agree wholeheartedly and together that the table set by Jesus is one open to all.
Whatever challenges await the General Conference 2016 in Oregon, heeding the warning of Bishop Alsted of the Nordic and Baltic Area will make us leave The United Methodist Church whole or a fragmented church. As he puts it, “Discerning God’s way for our denomination must be a shared desire and shared responsibility. We must keep an open mind and listen for God’s guidance.” Whether we hear God differently, keeping the unity of The United Methodist Church should reign supreme among conference delegates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)