Recently in Progressive Christianity Category

Gay and Dissident Bishops Excluded From ’08 Meeting

The direction the Anglican communion is taking is saddening. Bishops whose appointment, actions or 'manner of life' are considered divisive or scandalous have been excluded from invitation to the 2008 Lambeth Conference. According to the NY Times,

The archbishop of Canterbury sent out more than 800 invitations yesterday to a once-a-decade global gathering of Anglican bishops. But he did not invite the openly gay Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire and the bishop in Virginia who heads a conservative cluster of disaffected American churches affiliated with the archbishop of Nigeria. 

Openly gay bishop Gene Robinson might be at the center of this firestorm, but he is not the one responsible for sowing division and scandal in the worldwide Anglican communion. The responsibility for that lies squarely at the feet of Nigerian Archbishop Akinola and others bent on constraining the historical openness and unity of the Anglican communion by a new form of puritanical fundamentalism.

Bishop Robinson said he was extremely disappointed at his exclusion and asked in a statement, “At a time when the Anglican Communion is calling for a ‘listening process’ on the issue of homosexuality, how does it make sense to exclude gay and lesbian people from the discussion?”

The archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, who has expressed liberal views on homosexuality in the past, has been determined to keep the communion intact. In his invitation letter, Archbishop Williams wrote, “I have to reserve the right to withhold or withdraw invitations from bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the communion.”

How sad that the opportunity to extend grace (to both Robinson and his fundamentalist detractors) has been squandered in favor of political expediency.

Thank God Rowan Williams' ability to extend invitations is limited to ecclesial gatherings. I wonder who would be invited or disinvited to the banquet table of Christ, if invitations were in such mortal hands? As far as I know, the only criteria to get onto that list is to be thirsty for the free gift of the water of life (Rev. 22:17).

I wonder who Jesus would discriminate against?

In Camino Real, Tennessee Williams said “Life is an unanswered question, but lets still believe in the dignity and importance of the question.” Dignity is found in the pursuit of the important questions, not in the possession of all the answers. As a corollary, it’s possible (in fact essential) to have faith without relying on certainty as a crutch.

Jim Wallis was recently asked by the Washington Post whether he believed Jesus was the Son of God, and if so, what that means. Here is part of his response:

I believe the things that Jesus says about himself in the New Testament, and affirm what the later Scriptures and church creeds say about Jesus being the Son of God. But, that doesn't mean many of the things that Christians have too often concluded, or how we have acted on the basis of our belief.

Jesus being the Son of God does NOT mean that Christians are better, more right, more righteous, more moral, more blessed, more destined to win battles, or more suited to govern and decide political matters than non-Christians. Instead, believing that Jesus was the Son of God would better mean that people who claim to believe it ought to then live the way Jesus did and taught. And on that one, many of us Christians (who believe the right way) are in serious trouble when it comes to the way we live. Those who believe that Jesus was the Son of God should be the most loving, compassionate, forgiving, welcoming, peaceful, and hungry for justice people around—just like Jesus, right? Well, it's not always exactly so.

What a timely reminder as we enter a new year. Can we have the courage to affirm our faith without damning the beliefs (and souls) of others? Can we have a little less shrill rhetoric in 2007? I’m so tired of Christian arrogance, whether it be from the right or the left.

Jim notes that the famous evangelist Billy Graham exhibited great humility when asked about the fate of non-Christians.

One young believer stood up and asked Dr. Graham, "Since Jesus said 'I am the way, the truth and the life, and no man cometh to the Father but by me,' doesn't that mean people from other religions—Jews and the rest—are going to hell?" Billy replied, "I'm sure glad that God is the judge of people's hearts and not me! And I trust God to decide those questions justly and mercifully." The student was disappointed and pressed further, "Well, what do you think God will decide?" Graham demurred, "Well, God doesn't really ask my advice on those matters."

Maybe we could all apply that maxim. And remember to walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8).

As my friend Matt points out, if the sin of Sodom was pride (Isaiah 3:9, Ezekiel 16:49-50), then many Christians are indeed Sodomites and should be truly ashamed.

A lot of ink has been spilled over the story of Ted Haggard’s resignation amid revelations of sexual impropriety.

There is much chatter about abuse of power, the vulnerability of religious leaders in general, whether mega-church ministries set themselves up to fall in such spectacular ways, what are the warning signs, and so on. The center of gravity for these speculations is The Haggard Story, a supposedly sordid drama of lust and betrayal played out in four acts: Act I ‘The Pedestal’, Act II ‘The Scandal’, Act III ‘The Fall’ and in closing, Act IV ‘The Recovery’.

Liberal magazine The Christian Century covers the story in its November 28 issue with an editorial and accompanying news piece that more or less follow this boilerplate. The ‘scandal’ is framed as a fall from grace, a turn toward ‘sexual or chemical addictions’ accompanied by power-fueled hypocrisy.

But why is it that Haggard’s sexual liaisons with a male prostitute are framed in this manner? Forget for a moment that this is how Haggard himself and his charismatic cohorts have characterized it. Why should we view his situation as a personal ‘fall’ rather than as emblematic of a greater struggle going on within the church today – the struggle for equality, acceptance and ministry for all GLBT Christians?

Forget for a moment the sordid hype. Isn’t the real scandal here the way in which Haggard, even now, is still unable to come to terms with his sexual identity and accept himself as a beloved child of God, just as he is? That such a respected and surely learned man of God, who must have ministered grace to thousands of others, can not find within himself that same free gift of grace?

It’s a scandal that un-biblical sex-negative dogma has such a sway over much of the church that even liberal journals like The Christian Century can’t call a spade a spade. The lies that forced Ted Haggard to live a double life and pushed him toward dangerous and self destructive activity are the same lies that threaten the sanity, safety and wellbeing of millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people every single day.

The real scandal is that people are still forced to live this way in the twenty first century. The same lies are pushing Ted Haggard and thousands of others into so-called reparative therapy, which itself is a Great Lie and serves only to deepen the scandal and worsen the pain.

What we need is a non-scandalous response to a scandalous situation. Gay spiritual leaders have, as far as I can tell, reached out to Ted with grace and sincerity.

The Colorado Springs Gazette quoted Rev. Nori Rost, MCC clergy and founder of spiritual justice advocacy group Just Spirit, as saying “I feel a lot of sympathy for Ted. Having been a pastor, you live in a fishbowl anyway. It must be very painful for Ted and his family.”

In a November 6 press release, Soulforce urged “compassion for Haggard and accountability for the National Association of Evangelicals.” Executive Director Jeff Lutes said

Rev. Haggard is just one more tragic example of how lives are destroyed by the lies about gay and lesbian people perpetuated by the NAE, the Religious Right, and both the Protestant and Roman Catholic Church. Taught by the church to hate himself, the only option from his point of view was to lead a psychologically and spiritually damaging double life marked by denial and self-destructive behavior. Rev. Haggard is a victim of religion-based bigotry that regularly demeans and demoralizes gay and lesbian people and refuses to acknowledge that we are part of the American fabric, and that many of us form loving families and practice a deep faith in God.

Our community's anger at Rev. Haggard's hypocrisy is completely understandable. However, my hope is that our community will take the high road and extend an olive branch of friendship and support when he is ready to fully come out as a gay man. Dobson and the others will counsel him to bury, deny, and repress his sexuality even deeper than before. They will wound his spirit, and he is going to need our prayers and our compassionate message that God loves him, affirms him, and calls him to live his life openly with honesty and integrity.

Soulforce subsequently launched a campaign for LGBT and allied people to write letters of concern and compassion to Haggard. Apparently over three hundred people from different walks of life have written to him, many addressing themselves as people of faith coming from a conservative Christian background having once struggled with denial and being in bondage to anti-gay misinformation.

Some on the right might no doubt characterize such words and acts as part of some ‘homosexual agenda’ to exploit Ted Haggard’s sad circumstances for political ends. To accept such a viewpoint would be to fail to see the heartfelt concern of ordinary people who genuinely care about what the man and his family are going through. Unlike the fear-and-power mongers on the religious right, many of us know all too well what it is like to be on the receiving end of judgment and condemnation.

I am not Episcopal, but I find the Episcopal daily office lectionary a wonderful resource for reading and meditating on scripture. Lowell Grisham's blog provides each day's readings together with his personal commentary. Lowell is an astute observer of religion and public life and I highly recommend his insights.

Yesterday's and today's Hebrew scripture readings are from Micah 1 and 2. The prophet Micah warns here of God's impending judgment upon the cities of Jerusalem and Samaria, the twin political and religious centers of ancient Judah and Israel. Like many modern centers of power both cities had become, in Micah's eyes, corrupted at the core through their political and religious 'prostitution' and their abuse of wealth and power.

He rails against powerful interests who snatch property from the poor and evict families from their homes, against political leaders who raise extortionate taxes on the poor whilst inflicting unnecessary wars upon their people.

As Lowell observes,

Much of the complaint of the prophets was directed at the abuse of power by the wealthy and the politically connected. The prophets accuse the powerful of using their power to expand their own economic interests, often at the expense of the peasants and smaller landowners. There was lying, arrogance and corruption in the high places, particularly the seat of government. God detests such behavior, says Micah and the prophets. Such behavior brings God's judgment.

This stuff reads like today's headlines. When you read the 8th century prophets it is like reading a contemporary newspaper or watching TV news -- just substitute Washington for Samaria and Jerusalem. The 8th century BCE was a time when Israel was wealthy and politically powerful. It was also a time of increasing economic contrasts. The wealthy were concentrating much of the wealth and power into the hands of the elite, a circumstance guaranteed to draw the ire of the prophetic tradition.

Lowell goes on to note that the prescription against such abuse is summed up in Micah's famous prophetic demans, that the Israelites learn again 'to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.'

Such an injunction is appropriate given the times we live in. We may not be facing fire and brimstone from heaven, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest a callousness in public and private life equivalent to that prophesied against by Micah.

Given that an election is looming in the US, the Christian Alliance for Progress is timely in releasing its Christian Voters Values Guide 2006, a welcome counterpoint to the almost deafening posturing on 'values' by the religious right.

On several key points, the Voters Values Guide echos the concerns of Micah:

• Forsaking brute power - seeking peace, not war
• Caring for the earth - responsible environmental stewardship
• Rejectig bigotry, embracing dignity - equality for all
  
• Extending healing to all - health care for all

These concerns are reflected in the Gospels through the teaching and example of Christ. My prayer is that more of those who claim Jesus as savior of the world will actually begin to support and work for the things Jesus cared (and still cares) about.

I got word that Jim Wallis and Sojourners will be launching the God's Politics Blog next Monday. The first week will feature an online debate between Jim Wallis and Ralph Reed, so that should be interesting.

Jim is a progressive evangelical who has spoken out on the way in which the religious right has hijacked the Christian message. How the right has replaced that message with a narrow political agenda that has little to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and in fact often contradicts Christ's own teaching and example.

Jim's New York Times bestseller, God's Politics, has been characterized as the "book that changed the conversation" on faith and politics in the U.S.

Jim believes it's time for the monologue of the Religious Right to end and for a real dialogue to begin. And I agree. So visit the new blog and read daily posts by Jim and a host of other noted commentators on progressive faith and politics, including Amy Sullivan, Brian McLaren, Obery Hendricks, and Tony Campolo.

And if you haven't read the book, get a copy of that too.

 

A Council of Bishops, Elders and Christian Leaders committed to equal rights and inclusion for all will meet in Dallas beginning September 10 to address religious discrimination against LGBT people, and how to counter it.

Over 30 faith leaders from across the United States will assemble as part of the three-day event to worship, pray and strategize on how to remove homophobia and hate from our churches, and replace them with hospitality, justice and equality for all.

The gathering will be hosted by DignityUSA, The Fellowship, Institute for Welcoming Resources and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (UFMCC). Goals of the meeting will include:

• Form a Council of Christian churches that are dedicated to reclaiming their faith based on the Gospel of inclusion, justice and love.
• Make public statements on Marriage Equality; Parental Adoption and Foster Rights for LGBT families; and address other pressing social justice issues for LGBT families such as peace, immigration and the Iraq war.
• Develop a collaborative coordinated strategy for moving LGBT rights forward within our Christian traditions - through growing the number and strength of "welcoming and affirming" congregations, reaching out to those rejected and alienated by churches, planting new churches, and creating "fellowships" of supportive congregations and clergy.

Rev. Rebecca Voelkel, one of the lead organizers of the Council, is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ:

Certain religious groups have aggressively sought to define their agenda in the public's mind, through publicity and lobbying, as the Christian agenda. On the contrary, there is a growing movement of Christian clergy who reject this agenda, for whom bigotry and exclusion have no place in the Church.

It might be more appropriate (and more inclusive) to say that a growing movement of Christian laity reject the religious right's agenda. What excites me is that initiatives like this reflect not only the view of a handful of religious leaders, but are indicative of a groundswell of grassroots support — not only in the mainline liberal churches but increasingly within the evangelical movement.

Saturday's Star Tribune has an interview with Randall Balmer, evangelical author and professor of religious history at Columbia University.

Well, thank God Katherine Kersten doesn't write for the religious pages... if she did, I'm sure that instead of this fine piece we'd be getting yet another installment of her argument as to why "Minnesotans" (by which she presumably means we taxpayers) should for "the common good" foot the bill for renovating the landmark Catholic Cathedral of St. Paul. Which sounds remarkably like an argument for the establishment of religion by the state, but I digress...

Balmer's new book is Thy Kingdom Come: How The Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelical's Lament. Not a book Ms. Kersten would enjoy reading, I imagine.

On the historical legacy of evangelicalism, now abandoned by the religious right:

I am a traditional evangelical Christian in that I honor the teachings of Jesus as well as the noble legacy of evangelical activism in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Evangelicals throughout most of American history engaged in political and social activism on behalf of those on the margins of society. I'm thinking here of the antislavery movement, the temperance crusade (a progressive cause in the 19th century), public education, advocating equal rights for women and trying to mitigate the effects of predatory capitalism around the turn of the 20th century. Only relatively recently, with the rise of the religious right in the late 1970s, have evangelicals drifted toward the political right.

So, yes, I am a traditional evangelical; it is the right-wing zealots of the religious right who have hijacked my faith. They have taken the gospel, the "good news" of the New Testament, which I consider lovely and redemptive, and turned it into something ugly and punitive.

On the absence of outrage from the religious right concerning the use of torture in the war in Iraq:

I happen to think that's morally reprehensible. These are people who claim to be "pro-life," who profess to hear a "fetal scream," yet they turn a deaf ear to the very real screams of fully formed human beings who are being tortured in our name ...

I suspect that when Jesus asked us to love our enemies, he probably didn't mean that we should torture or kill them. 

On the establishment of religion by the state:

Religion always functions best from the margins of society and not at the centers of power. When it is too closely aligned with the power structure, it loses its prophetic voice.

On faith in God:

 As a person of faith, I decided years ago that I would refuse to allow the canons of Enlightenment Rationalism to be the final arbiter of truth. I elect to live in an enchanted universe where there are forces at work beyond my understanding and control -- and where faith, not empiricism or complex apologetic proofs for the existence of God, serves ultimately as my guide ...

I sometimes describe myself as a "lovers' quarrel" evangelical. By that I mean that I have been, and I continue to be, profoundly shaped by evangelicals and by evangelicalism. I take the Bible very seriously as the word of God, and I believe in the transformative power of Jesus, in part because I've witnessed that transformation both in myself and in others.

On what is "biblical" Christianity:

Would Jesus, who summoned his followers to be "peacemakers" and who invited them to love their enemies, jump at the chance to deploy military forces, especially at the cost of so many civilian lives? Is the denial of equal rights to anyone -- women or immigrants or Muslims or gays -- consistent with the example of the man who healed lepers and paralytics and who spent much of his time with the cultural outcasts of his day?

In the past couple of years I've developed a new respect for cutting edge evangelicals like Balmer, Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren. They, along with liberal writers like John Shelby Spong and Marcus Borg, have helped me rediscover a rich and meaningful faith in God. One that has developed in counterpoint to the religious extremism and moral bankruptcy of the religious right and much of what is stands for (and against).

I hope more and more people read books like this. The crux of this issue is much more than a mere disagreement over theology or Christian piety. The religious right has hijacked the Christian faith, and we must understand how this has happened and what to do to take it back -- if we want to be able to continue to live in a world where all people are honored as children of God, where democracy is both a possibility and a reality, where the gospel of Jesus continues to work in and from the margins to transform the world, and where "peace on earth, goodwill among men" is more than a platitude written on Christmas cards.

Focus on the Family Action, James Dobson's lobbying organization, will be holding a vote-your-hate rally at the Excel energy Center on October 3. Featured speakers will be FOTF's James Dobson, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins, former presidential candidate Gary Bauer and Antioch Bible Church's Ken Hutcherson.

The event is billed as a "rally for the family", but the speaker lineup and blurb on the web-site clearly indicates it is a publicity stunt designed to rally the troops for Dobson's anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-democratic political agenda ahead of the November elections.

Which is why the upcoming release of a new book on the religious right is all the more important. Rev. Mel White, founder of Soulforce, will be in Minneapolis Thursday, September 14 at the Wayzata Community Church, to promote Religion Gone Bad: The Hidden Dangers of the Religious Right.

Mel is a former evangelical insider, having ghost written books for Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson before coming out as a gay Christian. From this background and his work with Soulforce he is uniquely qualified to write this exposé of the American religious right.

The Reverend Mel White, a deeply religious man who sees fundamentalism as "evangelical Christian orthodoxy gone cultic," believes that it is not a stretch to say that the true goal of today's fundamentalists is to break down the wall that separates church and state, superimpose their "moral values" on the U.S. Constitution, replace democracy with theocratic rule, and ultimately create a new "Christian America" in their image.

As he writes, "These are not just Neocons dressed in religious drag. These men see themselves as gurus called by God to rescue America from unrighteousness. They believe this is a Christian nation that must be returned forcibly to its Christian roots."

Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong, in his review of the book, says that Mel lays bare

the fierce anti-homosexual agenda of organized religion from the Vatican to the American television preachers. White paints a frightening picture of what they mean when they call for ‘making America a Christian nation.’ He issues a challenging wake up call both to those who are traditional Christians as well as to those who hold deeply human values. A consciousness-raising, must-read book.

Rev. Paul W. Egertson of the ELCA says the book is

a devastating and documented account of what happens when fanatical religion and fascistic politics hook up in a semi-secret affair that gives birth to spiritual, and sometimes physical, terrorism.

The primary targets of this spiritual and physical terrorism today are gays. But the hatred extends to all who oppose the theocratic agenda. Presbyterian Church (USA) moderator Rev. Jack Rogers calls the book "essential reading for anyone concerned about the health of the church and the future of our nation".

I've already ordered my copy.

Lowell Grisham is an Episcopal priest whose daily reflections on the scripture readings from the Book of Common Prayer are often thought provoking and inspiring. He also writes the daily devotions some months on explorefaith.org.

Today in his blog he reflects on the broader implications of Paul's affirmation (in Romans 11) that the chosen people's rejection of the Gospel opened a great door and opportunity for the Gentiles:

I guess it is always this way when God reaches out more broadly to bring grace. We see it in the church. Around 30 years ago our branch of the church acted to recognized God's presence through women in ordained leadership. Some of our people rejected that decision and still do. More recently, we have moved to recognize God's presence in our gay and lesbian members and their relationships. Some of our people reject those decisions.

What I found striking in the scripture text was in relation to what Paul said earlier, in Romans 10. Many in Israel could not accept the good news of justification by grace. Their belief in their own righteousness, or obstinacy and disobedience as Paul calls it, led to a spirit of stupor, making them blind and deaf to the new thing God was beginning to do among the Gentiles. Their table became a snare to them, a trap and a stumbling block.

How aptly this seems to describe those who would deny the gifts of grace today, those who would close their 'table' to modern-day Gentiles, whether it be GLBT people of faith, so-called 'illegal' immigrants, women bishops, or whoever. Not only does their table (or refusal of table to others) becoming a stumbling block for their own spiritual development, I believe it becomes a stumbling block for the world. People look at the church and often see a room full of private, sparsely furnished tables, not realizing that God's banquet table is abundant and open to all.

It's easy for people like me who live on the margins to remain caught up in anger or frustration with those Christians who refuse to see or hear what God is doing in my world, and who refuse to grant me a place at 'their' table. But it's refreshing to be always and often reminded of the "much greater riches" Paul promises. Lowell says,

As Paul is anguished for the separation of the Christian movement from his own source -- "I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin" -- so we are anguished by the conflicts and divisions the church lives with. Like Paul, we can rejoice at the wider grace of God being experienced by those who were once excluded. Like Paul we can also anticipate the reconciliation and reunion of those who have rejected this stage in God's work of salvation. The expectation is for full inclusion. Jew, Gentile; male, female; gay, straight.

I enjoyed reading Dwight's posts today and Tuesday on what some label the 'sins' of liberal Christianity.

I always thought that defending unpopular but just causes was a virtue, not a sin. I do know that it is a sin to bear false witness. Religious right pundits like Charlotte Allen (and Katherine Kersten for that matter) are too well informed and educated to not know that they're bending and twisting the truth to suit their own particular ideological agendas.

God help me if I ever need to resort like them to outright lies and distortions in order to make my point.

With all the talk of schism within the Anglican communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury has now suggested a new solution to the Episcopal 'problem':

Dr Williams is proposing a two-track Anglican Communion, with orthodox churches being accorded full, "constituent" membership and the rebel, pro-gay liberals being consigned to "associate" membership. 

All provinces will be offered the chance to sign up to a "covenant" which will set out the traditional, biblical standards on which all full members of the Anglican church can agree.

But it is highly unlikely that churches such as The Episcopal Church in the US, the Anglican churches in Canada and New Zealand and even the Scottish Episcopal Church would be able to commit themselves fully to such a document.

These churches and any others that refused to sign up could opt to cut ties to Canterbury altogether, or could choose to remain in associate status.

My own personal bias is that the so-called 'traditionalists' are the real rebels here. In seeking to enforce a particular view of orthodoxy, they are wanting to transform the Anglican Communion from the broad church it has always been into a narrowly defined evangelical sect dominated by the shallow opinions of a few very loud fundamentalists.

Father Tobias Haller sees a silver lining. Being relegated to 'coach' class may actually free the Episcopal church to concentrate more on the real work of the church, and less on "all the intrigue and gilded butterflies of the ecclesiastical 'court.'"

The problem with the contemporary church is we're thinking about ministers instead of ministry: all this focus on personal qualities and manner of life instead of whether they do what Jesus said to do [...]

The only downside to Rowan's reflection is his still being mired with this particular sticky matter: "The Church's One Obsession" with its own structure, its being rather than its doing; the tendency to exalt form over function. But I'm hopeful the two-track solution might actually be liberating for us all!

So let's embrace an imperfect communion based on mission instead of a pure one based on the lifestyles of the missionaries!

Of course it goes deeper really than manner of life. What the 'orthodox' faithful really object to is not lifestyle per se but the acceptance of certain ways of being Christian, specifically that of being gay and a bishop or a woman and presiding-bishop. At the center of 'orthodoxy' lies a black heart of misogyny.

In this I'm reminded of the words of Jesus (Matthew 5:10-12, The Message):

You're blessed when your commitment to God provokes persecution. The persecution drives you even deeper into God's kingdom.

Not only that—count yourselves blessed every time people put you down or throw you out or speak lies about you to discredit me. What it means is that the truth is too close for comfort and they are uncomfortable. You can be glad when that happens—give a cheer, even!—for though they don't like it, I do! And all heaven applauds. And know that you are in good company. My prophets and witnesses have always gotten into this kind of trouble.

How true!

One of those questions that bugs the hell out of me is why the Star Tribune retains a theocrat like Katherine Kersten to write ostensibly 'local' commentary that is little more than thinly veiled rhetoric for the extreme religious right.

Kersten has written a number of pieces like this one, highly critical of mainstream religious efforts to promote diversity. This should come as little surprise to anyone who knows from whence this poisonous woman hails. Kersten sits on the advisory board of the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), a right wing political action group dedicated to undermining and destroying the social witness of mainstream denominations such as the Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians and United Church of Christ. The IRD privately funds and supports fundamentalist splinter factions in each of these churches, in much the same way that Tehran funds Islamist groups in moderate Arab nations.

So bravo for a the group of retired United Methodist clergy who responded today with a sharp expose of Kersten's tactics.

Today we talked about MCC being a queer church movement rather than merely welcoming or open and affirming (ONA).

This is a controversial topic and may rouse some suspicion within even some MCC congregations, who probably do see themselves as welcoming and not necessarily queer.

However, it seems to me that there are at least two key differentiators:

1. Individual local congregations (and in some denominations, conferences) may choose to become open and affirming. Which means of course that this is a choice that at some time in the future may be reversed. It is not an essential part of their church polity and is not universally recognized or supported at a denominational level.
   
2. Open and affirming congregations welcome, invite, accept or tolerate queer people in their midst and may even (in some polities) ordain them as clergy. This is not the same as understanding and practising church, doing theology and living Christian ministry from a distinctly queer perspective.
   

MCC is the only church movement that speaks consistently and always from and for the margins of heteronormative society. We are no more likely to fade away with the slow dawn of mainstream tolerance than are the black churches going to close any time soon.

There was also discussion about queering liturgy and preaching. As an exercise we broke into small groups to conceive of specifically queer rites of confirmation, laying on of hands and blessing. My group developed a laying on of hands liturgy specifically designed to invoke God's Spirit in the recongition of someone's coming out process.

With a minimum of time and resources, it was amazing to witness the liturgies that each group was able to devise. Each rite spoke powerfully to the experience of queer folk in their relationship with God and the community. This reinforced for me the power and importance of imagining and developing new transformative rites in and for the queer community.

The open communion practised in MCC is one such example of a transformative rite or sacrament. The occasional voluntary practice of rebaptism after coming out (as undergone by me at the age of 21) may be another. But we have only begun to touch the surface of how we might use liturgy in new transformative ways.

The Star Tribune published quite a good piece the other day on the resurgence of progressive Christian voices in the public sphere.

Nationwide, new books and websites are raising the flag of the religious left. In Minnesota, the trend has been evident in such arenas as the legislative debate over a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Evangelicals and Catholics who back a ban faced church activists who argued that godliness was on their side. The chorus of liberal religious voices also has been heard on poverty, immigration and taxes ...

"People of faith have to help govern," [director of the Joint Legislative Religious Coalition, Brian] Rusche said. "The religious right tends to quote the Bible, while the left is moved by the longer narratives in which God calls people to do works of justice.

"People should use their beliefs to assess policy, but once you enter the civic realm, you have to honor religious pluralism," he said.

Rabbi Michael Lerner, author of "The Left Hand of God" and founder of the nationwide Network of Spiritual Progressives, said the religious right rose when it "addressed the spiritual void people felt when the dominant values were selfishness and materialism."

Liberals trying to keep talk of values out of the public sphere "only succeeded in keeping talk of their values out," he said. "The Constitution doesn't ban values in the public sphere. It only says the state should not impose a particular vision of God on us."

Of course, the mainstream media likes to characterize every issue in terms of binary opposites, and so spiritual progressives are represented as the "left" in counterpoint to the religious right.

In reality, Christian progressives represent the faithful middle ground between fundamentalism and secularism. In an e-mail sent today to friends of United Theological Seminary, Jaime Meyer put it this way:

It’s important to remember that what the media likes to call “left” or “liberal” is, actually, the middle of the road theologically. Religious liberals or progressives have long sought to articulate a view of God, Christ and the scriptures that is deeply rooted in the bible and tradition, and that finds a middle way between literalism on one hand and secularism on then other.

The media likes to portray “the fight” as between the “Religious Right” and “Religious Left.” But really, the two poles are literalism and secularism. Radicals from both poles like to portray those in the middle as occupying the opposite pole from themselves. Progressive Christianity is the heart-felt and deeply considered prayerful middle way between literalism and secularism. “The Faithful Middle is Finally Getting a Chance to Speak” might be a better headline!

Amen to that. 

Another thing that occurred to me in reflecting on today's class was how MCC has played a part in the development of other streams in the LGBTQ social movement.

• Several other church groups and denominations found their roots in MCC, including Unity Fellowship Church (a predominantly black GLBT liberation-theology centered church with 14 congregations, started in 1985 by Carl Bean, an MCC-trained minister), International Christian Community Churches (an association of 13 evangelical churches started in 2002) and Cathedral of Hope in Dallas (the world's largest LGBT congregation, with 3,500 members, currently pursuing affiliation with the UCC).
  
• Beth Chayim Chadashim, the world's first LGBT Jewish congregation, was founded in LA in 1972 with support from Troy Perry and MCC.
• Many of the reconciling, affirming, welcoming etc groups within or aligned with traditional denominational movements have received inspiration, training, support or leadership at one time or another from MCC.
• Numerous AIDS and community service oriented organizations internationally were started as local MCC initiatives.
  

I think it is fair to say that the spiritual and social influence of MCC as a movement has touched hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives in one way or another. Often these connections are not acknowledged in the official and popular histories.

Another note — Wikipedia contains some brief, but excellent, articles on MCC and various MCC clergy and theologians. I was talking with another student in the class about the need to better document our history and theology. What better way to do this than in Wikipedia? I am considering getting involved as a contributor and doing some research to update existing articles and add more.