Friday, May 16, 2008

A weekly look-around at the Church in the World.



Today the State of California is at the top of the national news: “The California Supreme Court, striking down two state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman, ruled on Thursday that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.” (New York Times.) In its decision, the Court wrote, “…the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”



Barely three weeks ago, the United Methodist Church sustained the current language of our Book of Discipline, which will continue to exclude those who are not heterosexual from full participation in the life and leadership of the Church. What to make of this timely juxtaposition of two major institutions addressing what is essentially the same issue?



For me, what stands out is how much the roles of church and state—in this instance at least—have switched places from where we were in the 1960’s. In that era, the Protestant church was a socially activist leader in the civil rights movement. Those of us with gray or limited hair can remember the thrill of seeing pastors and church leaders at the forefront and in the news, their statements and actions analyzed as closely as any presidential candidate today.



Today, religious leaders usually appear in the news as crackpots or despots. This is in part because the news loves the extremist of whatever stripe: it makes for easier, faster, sound-bite, black-white reporting. But it is also because such extremists are more common and available. The voices of a more temperate faith have a hard time getting traction with a media machine that runs on hype and is regularly fed by hypsters.



So the carefully deliberative method of our General Conference, even in its decisions about human sexuality and the institutional church, did not rise to the level of must-see TV or front page headlines. But that does not mean people did not care. Retired U.M. pastor Gil Caldwell (whom it was my honor to appoint in the Rocky Mountain Conference and a national leader in the civil rights movement,) wrote incisively following the General Conference decisions: “Martin Luther King once said of segregation, ‘Segregation is dead, it is just a question of how long and expensive some folk want to make the funeral…[As a church, we] have chosen to extend and finance the funeral of heterosexism even though we know that it is on its deathbed...”



The media won’t much care for the writings of even such a historic leader as Rev. Caldwell. But we can attend to the voices in our own midst, and in so doing, perhaps find a voice that will move the church forward to contend with the State for leadership on issues of moral segregation. I am particularly mindful (and inspired by) yet another letter on my desk: a retired pastor from Oklahoma wrote to me on this issue prior to General Conference, echoing Reverends Caldwell and King: “I still think the present U.M. position on homosexuality is humpty-dumpty, and I hope it will have a hard fall at this General Conference. If not this time, it is sure to fall in the future.” And here’s the clincher: “p.s. Please forgive my handwriting. My daughter is not available at the time to write this for me. I am 101 years old and approaching 102 in August 12th if I live that long.”



May we all live so long, and continue to lift our voices, so that the church turns its ear, its heart, and its voice, to greater truths yet to be told.

Shalom, Mary Ann