Asterisk

…because I’m heading to Washington, D.C. and plan on posting the heck out of the National Equality March. Tomorrow is travel with mostly sight-seeing (read:probably sleeping in and watching TV) on Friday. (I haven’t had a vacation in five years, so I’m hoping I remember how to do this.) Saturday is busy with official events, though I’m trying to space it out to give myself breathing room.

Here’s what I’m planning so far:

1. Faith and the LGBT Community
   Can You Be a Person of Faith and Still Be Who You Are?
   Friday: 7:00pm-8:30pm
2. DADT Protest & Memorial Service Honoring Leonard Matlovich
   Speakers Span Four Decades of Fighting the Ban on Gays in the Military
   Saturday: 2:00pm
3. Old Divisions, New Coalitions: Race and the LGBT Movement
   With Irene Munroe and Derek Washington
   Saturday: 3:00pm-4:30pm
4. United Methodists Welcome National Equality Marchers
   Prayer and Thanksgiving!
   Saturday: 7:00pm-9:00pm
5. National Equality March
   March for Equality!
   Sunday: 12:00pm
6. National Equality March Rally
   The March culminates in a rally at the Capitol Building
   Sunday: 2:00pm-5:00pm

I may have to cut number three for time. Hope not, but unless the two events are really close to each other, I don’t know how I’ll make both.

What you’ll see here during the weekend will be shorter posts with pictures and video through flickr and possibly audio through trottr. I’ve never used the latter, and I’m not sure I can get it to auto-post. I’m going to be traveling with no computer but my mobile, so I’ll be limited to what I can transmit through MMS. In addition, I might decide to write a longer post when I get back to the hotel, depending on whether they have a communal computer I can use.

All of this will be seen here on Asterisk, and on iQreport, a new aggregation site. As always, you can follow me on Twitter to catch a few non-post-worthy observations.

I hope to see you there! I’ll be the fat guy breathing heavy from all the walking.

For 24 years, the churches in Oakfield, New York came together for a Sunday morning ecumenical worship service during the annual “Labor Daze” festival.

That all came to an end this year. In May 2009, Rev. Larry Eastlack of Oakfield United Methodist Church wrote a letter to the editor in favor of civil marriage equality. In early August, the pastors in charge of the service demanded that Rev. Eastlack recant his views or be excluded from the service. A month after Rev. Eastlack removed himself from the committee, they scrapped the worship service for fear of protesters.

From The Batavian:

The brigade against his views is led by fundamentalist pastors at Oakfield Community Bible Church, led by Bill Smith, and Mark Perkins, who leads the Oakfield Alabama Baptist Church. They’ve been coordinating the Community Worship Service for the past several years and wanted to exclude [Rev. Larry] Eastlack from the Community Worship Service this year specifically because of his now publically (sic) known views on gay marriage.

They asked to sit down with the reverend and Perkins said they, including Eastlack’s associate Dave Phelps, discussed their views cordially and the meeting ended with Eastlack’s decision not to participate if that meant creating more strife.

A letter prepared Aug. 10 by Perkins and Smith — which amounts to an ultimatum to disavow gay marriage or else be shunned — was given to Eastlack afterward “almost as an afterthought,” said Perkins to emphasize the amiable tone at the meeting’s conclusion.

The letter rejects the notion of gay marriage as a civil rights issue and the idea that homosexuality is determined genetically. It cites Scripture on the issue and urges Eastlack to change his stance, with this caveat:

“…our Elders have stated that having you take part (in the Sept. 6 service) would send a message to our community and respective congregations that 1. We are in agreement with your stance or 2. We are willing to pretend that unity exists.”

The mayor finds the whole thing ugly.

“My personal feeling is that it just saddens me down to my soul,” Pastecki said.

That mayor’s a smart man.

I haven’t been able to find the text of the August 10th ultimatum yet, but I did find Rev. Eastlack’s letter to the editor. Prepare to clutch your pearls, girls:

When Miss California, of the Miss USA Pageant, said she believed that marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman, she ignited strong opposition and support. Later she said, “As a Christian, I’d rather be biblically correct than politically correct,” as if Christians have no other option.

So far, same-sex marriage has been legalized in six states, with New York considering similar legislation. Most evangelical leaders are encouraging their congregations to oppose the Marriage Equality Act because they believe it is incompatible with biblical teachings.

Well, I believe it is possible to stay true to your religious convictions and still support legislation that would allow homosexuals to enjoy all the rights and responsibilities that come with matrimony. It is possible to spiritually oppose same-sex marriage without using the law to impose those views on others who believe differently. If evangelical Christians want all Americans to respect and protect their rights, it is imperative that they also respect and defend the legitimate rights of those with differing beliefs. As a pastor, I am encouraged when any couple in a loving and committed relationship desires to exchange vows that would publicly and contractually bind two loves as one.

This should not be a controversial viewpoint! It’s a positively middle-of-the-road, rational, constitutional understanding of the issue. It seems to me that Smith and Perkins need to re-read the third sentence in the last paragraph. Here, I’ll repost it:

If evangelical Christians want all Americans to respect and protect their rights, it is imperative that they also respect and defend the legitimate rights of those with differing beliefs.

My thanks to Rev. Larry Eastlack, for making his view public and for sticking to his convictions under pressure. We need more like him.

The United Methodist Church has a second trans pastor and his congregation couldn’t be happier. Rev. David Weekley of Epworth UMC in Portland, Oregon came out in his sermon yesterday after 27 years in the closet.

Standing behind his pulpit, Weekley began his usual worship service. About halfway through, he paused to share a personal message he called “My Book Report.” He told them that in 1984, just nine years after undergoing extensive sex-reassignment surgeries, he was ordained by the Methodist Church without telling anyone of his original gender at birth.

Following his story, the congregation, who had remained silent throughout his talk, broke into thunderous applause. Church members then proclaimed their support for their pastor.

“It doesn’t change him; he’s still Reverend David, and that’s what counts,” says congregation member Robbie Tsuboi, who has been attending Epworth since 1964. “I think it was a really, really positive reaction. From what I understand, it was 100 percent support within the church.”

Image by Pamplin Media Group

I can’t tell you how touched I am by the Epworth congregation. Their reaction is exactly what a Christian reaction to bravery and honesty should be.

“We at Epworth support him,” says congregation member Kazuko Hara, who has been attending Epworth’s services for more than 50 years. “I am supportive of him and will stand by him.”

“I think that they’re looking at his heart,” adds Kaau Ahina, who has been attending Epworth for three years. “They love him for who he is, and (his wife) Deborah.”

Following Sunday morning’s service, Weekley answered questions from the congregation about his decision and his life. One member asked: Was he relieved to have revealed the truth about his life? Weekley exhaled. “Extremely,” he answered. “Twenty-seven years is a long time,” he says. “I have a lot to say and now I can finally say it.”

Despite anticipating that some of his congregation would leave the church, Weekley actually heard that some members plan to become more involved following his disclosure on Sunday.

“I don’t think I anticipated that so much,” he says smiling.

Please read the rest of the article at the Portland Tribune website. There are a few inaccuracies in the article as to policies in the UMC regarding LGBT people, but that’s to be expected with the complex maze we’ve constructed.

Special thanks to Tribune writer Christine McFadden, not only for the story, but for getting the pronouns right. That’s usually a problem for trans people in the press, but from what I can tell she got it exactly right!

It’s not unusual for LGBT-inclusive pastors to catch flak for their position; I daresay it happens more often than we know. We should always support these brave women and men of faith as they fight for our inclusion, but today I learned of a case that deserves special attention.

Rev. Kevin Young of Wesley Memorial UMC in Huntsville, Texas is under fire from some in his congregation. The college-age Sunday School class at his church recently decided to explicitly include LGBT people in their group. Though a vocal minority in the church have asked Rev. Young to overturn their decision, he is standing fast in support of inclusion.

You should know that this isn’t the first time Rev. Young has stood up for the inclusion of all in the UMC. Kevin Young took a major career risk last year in proposing Amendment One to the General Conference.

Following are excerpts from a letter by Dr. Jim Bankston (who spoke in favor of Amendment One), published by neighboring University UMC:

…it is not always easy to speak out, or to know what we can do as individuals within our denomination to promote the Christian message of God’s unequivocal love and grace.

Recently, we have been presented with an opportunity for action. The Rev. Kevin Young who, with his wife Laura co-chairs Breaking the Silence, is under attack by a small faction within his church who oppose his leadership in teaching and practicing the Gospel message that God loves all people. The attacks have been relentless and personal. The attackers have sought to stir up dissent within the congregation and have said that their goal is to get Rev. Young removed from their church. They have withdrawn their financial support leaving the church with a shortfall that now stands at about $35,000.

Each of us can take action and make a difference in the following ways:

• Send a note, a card, or other written demonstration of support and love for Kevin and Laura.
• If your finances permit, you can make a donation to Wesley Memorial United Methodist Church, Huntsville, to help the church overcome its deficit and continue to meet its apportionments and operating expenses. A donation of $50 or $100, or indeed, any amount, would be helpful and welcome. If 100 people each could make a donation of $500, the immediate financial crisis would be averted and the church would have an operating fund cushion to allow Rev. Young to focus on healing the schism within his congregation. Every contribution sends a message that you support inclusive clergy and the silent majority within their churches who also stand with them.

Let’s return the favor and support Rev. Young now. If you (like me) can’t make a financial donation, please send Rev. Young a message of encouragement. (See the University UMC post for contact information and instructions.)

With the fate of the United Methodist Church’s (UMC) Amendment One all but decided, I thought it’d be a good time to take a look back at the reason the amendment was proposed.

In late 2005, the Judicial Council released Decision 1032. The question at hand was whether the UMC Book of Discipline (BoD) permits pastors to come up with their own rules for membership. The case was brought because a Virginia pastor refused to accept an openly gay man into the church membership even though he met all membership requirements set forth by the BoD.

As Rev. Eric Folkerth explains, the Judicial Council found that the word may (“All people may…become members”) must be defined as may or may not. Thus, even though a candidate meets all requirements, an individual church’s pastor has the sole authority to accept or reject his membership request.

Here are the two paragraphs specifically mentioned by the Judicial Council:

Section V. Church Membership
¶ 214. Eligibility- […] All people may [may or may not] …become members in any local church in the connection (¶ 4). In the case of persons whose disabilities prevent them from reciting the vows, their legal guardian[s], themselves members in full covenant relationship with God and the Church, the community of faith, may [may or may not] recite the appropriate vows on their behalf.

¶ 225. Transfer from Other Denominations-A member in good standing in any Christian denomination […] may [may or may not] be received as either a baptized or a professing member by a proper certificate of transfer from that person’s former church, or by a declaration of Christian faith, and upon affirming willingness to be loyal to The United Methodist Church (see ¶¶ 214-217). […]

Amendment One was an attempt to recast ¶ 4 in more declarative terms, making Decision 1032 moot. Unfortunately, it is now mathematically impossible for Amendment One to pass, meaning that until at least the next General Conference, we’re stuck with the Judicial Council’s error of judgment. Though the original purpose for Decision 1032 was to keep LGBT people out, the implications of reinterpreting the word may touch far more than just us. Here’s a partial list of the kinds of people for whom membership may now be refused:

• LGBTs. Let’s just get that one out of the way. Heterosexuality and non-transgenderedism can now be used as a requirement for membership.
• Those who break other Biblical rules. Let’s dispose of this one too. If you eat pork, shellfish, rabbit, or cheeseburgers your membership is in danger. If you have any tattoos or wear polyester you could be shown the door. Women, wearing jewelry or curling your hair might mean that you aren’t good enough for the UMC. If you don’t obey the Sabbath (not Sunday) you could be kept out of full union with the Church.
• Racial and ethnic minorities. Though ¶ 4 of the BoD makes clear the intent of the Church (All persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition, shall be eligible …upon baptism be admitted as baptized member.), Decision 1032 removes specific inclusion from ¶ 4 by giving pastors the sole authority in ¶ 214 to decide if they want one of Those People in their congregation or not.
• The poor. Likewise, those in poverty are at risk. Most churches encourage but don’t require a member to give 10% of her wages to the Church. This “bending” of Biblical law is done understanding that there are times in modern society when one simply cannot afford to do so. Decision 1032 opened the door to making a tithe a requirement for membership. Don’t laugh; I’ve heard of it happening at one church locally.
• The severely disabled. One section of ¶ 214 (above) was originally intended to give the severely disabled full access to the Church. With Decision 1032, that same section now specifically permits a pastor to deny that person’s membership. Why would a pastor do such a thing? Theoretically, someone who is severely disabled is potentially less capable of holding down a job, making him even less likely to tithe while still costing the congregation in apportionments to the Conference.

I could continue, but I think my point is made. The reach of Decision 1032 is far greater than people suspect. That’s the problem with keeping people out; allow it with one group and inevitably you’ll find another group to keep out, then another, and another.

As Terrence Heath said last November, you may not be gay, but you may be next.