My expectations going into the meeting were to have open, honest, and authentic conversations with active listening. For everyone to hear one another authentically, in the spirit of all being one in Christ.
We began with lunch in small groups as a way to introduce ourselves to one another and to engage in small group conversations.
Our meeting time with the bishops was for two hours, although two hours was definitely not an adequate amount of time for discussion.
The meeting opened with introductions from Troy Plummer and Bishop Dyck about how we got to this meeting; referencing back to General Conference 2008.
We then went around the room twice for each person to share what their hopes were for the meeting and even in the bigger picture. I expressed, along with several others, the importance of including young people in this conversation. Young people are at a different place on issues relating to sexuality. Furthermore, young people need a church to call home and if the church is constantly condemning people, what home does that leave them? I also shared that I joined the United Methodist Church because I was hurt by my own church many, many times; I don't want to see myself get hurt again, nor do I want to see other people being hurt by the church.
After a summation of common threads, we broke off into small groups to discuss methods and ways of going forward. Then we reconvened in our large group to share our ideas and to gather around common themes. There was a lot of consensus around committing to/having public conversation grounded in our Methodist way of relating to each other and beliefs.
The last part of the meeting was rather awkward and confusing as we attempted to figure out if we were done or if we would all meet again. There was also confusion on what "public conversation" looked like and how that would be achieved. There was also confusion and differences among the bishops in terms of their own personal visions, goals, and expectations.
After closing the meeting, the Reconciling advocates gathered to debrief about the meeting. There was clear dissatisfaction with some of the aspects of the meeting. I expressed my own confusion and frustration over the differences in ideas over what "public conversation" meant and whether we would meet again with the bishops.
During the awkward closing of the meeting, there was some discussion over the possibility of "widening the table" to include representatives from Good News and Confessing Movement. For myself and several others, we were very uncomfortable with that idea. As one person said during our debriefing, if we were having a conversation about how to achieve racial reconciliation, we wouldn't invite the Ku Klux Klan or a white supremacy group to show us how. That was definitely my own sentiment towards that idea of inviting opposing groups into this discussion about how we are going to bring the church to a point of reconciliation over gender and sexual diversity.
The agenda is definitely left unfinished! Both sides were encouraged to map out our ideas of how we can implement open and public conversation. In the end, I felt the the meeting ended unclear and incomplete. I know we will be working hard to make sure this meeting happens again and to make sure we are moving forward and not just taking one step forward just to stay there or to take steps back.
How exactly do you figure you're going to move forward if you aren't going to listen to anyone who doesn't already agree with you?
ReplyDeleteWe've had dialogue with those groups before. These groups don't strive for reconciliation in the church and reconciliation is what the greater group is trying (or at least had agreed was the goal) to find a place of reconciliation in the church.
ReplyDeleteReferencing the Klan and race comment: why would we invite a group that is clearly on the other side of the issue to show us how to tolerant and loving when they don't practice that themselves.
Furthermore, we don't need to put ourselves in situations where we are just going to experience more homophobia and hurtful theology.
Jesus didn't tell us to love our friends. He told us to love our "enemies" and he said "blessed are the peacemakers." Don't you think that applies to you???
ReplyDeleteWhen have you actually had dialogue as opposed to the two of you talking past each other?
If you don't believe that reconciliation means that we all figure out how to live together as children of God, then I don't know where things end up, but reconciliation isn't going to be the result. If "reconciliation" means "Just give me what I want because I know I'm right," that just isn't going to work.
When you take a hardline attitude you just make their case for them that you are the unreasonable ones willing to wreck the church to get what YOU want.
Creed, I definitely agree that Christ calls us to love our "enemies" and all our neighbors at that.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I haven't been clear in why this particular group of bishops had met with us and why it is important that such groups not be at the table.
After the reconciling witness on the plenary floor at General Conference in Ft. Worth, Texas a group of bishops and a group of reconciling folk got together to table a discussion around what had happened at General Conference in terms of the vote to maintain anti-gay language in the Book of Discipline, as well the treatment of LGBTs in the church. This "task force" that got together agreed that they would meet in order discuss how it is that we can start making progressive steps in the church in terms of moving towards open reconciliation. They agreed they would meet with reconciling folk on a regular basis over the next quadrennium.
We (as groups and as individuals) have had exhausting conversations with groups that stand with us and against us. For this particular group and the goals that we had set in mind at General Conference, meeting with opposing groups wouldn't help move our meetings move in the direction they need to.
Now, during this meeting we just had we did discuss the importance of engaging these groups (like Good News and Confessing), but not in the form of having them a part of this "task force." (I really don't like that word, but I'm using it for a lack of a better term). They will certainly be engaged and a lot of energy will be placed in having dialogue with them. But from what was discussed at General Conference, them being part of the group that discusses how we move the church forward would not be in our best interest.
Becca: Why exactly are Chuck's statements of his beliefs "out of line"? And, according to you, not only out of line but "way" out of line. The Bible and our tradition--as well as the traditions and beliefs of most Christian denominations--continues to view homosexual acts as sinful. And there is a wide body of belief that sin is the devil's way of separating us from God. So, though you obviously hold different views, if that is what Chuck believes (and many UMs do, particularly in the growing African congregations), how can we hope to have dialogue if one side rules out of bounds accurate statements of other's sincere beliefs?
ReplyDeleteAs someone who does not belong to RMN nor support the advocacy for changing the discipline in regards to homosexuality, I do have to agree with the last point that Justin made. Barna's recent survey found that something like 90% of young adults found the church to be homophobic (something like that)... I've heard testimonies from Gay Christians and Ex-gay Christians who both have the same story. "There was a place that was willing to accept me." That's the issue that I do think we can seek reconciliation over. Are we really willing to accept everyone into the church? Now, we need to have standards, i.e. teaching that God's plan for sexuality is between one man and one woman, per Genesis 1 & 2, but we need to be a place where anyone can come and find a place that will love and work with them. Becoming a church that will not negotiate on its beliefs in both acceptance and sexual morality is worth working for.
ReplyDeleteJustin. Thank you for your comments. I'm friends with quite a few RMN supporters and am glad when we can talk with and not past each other. Genesis is for sexual activity, yet I do not believe all people are called to be sexually active. While we are all sexual creatures we live in a broken world and thus some things are seemingly "not fair", I agree. Also, regarding the gay and exgay Christians, they have said the same things you just said. Many places did not accept them, but it was when they found a place that did and was willing to love, support and help them that they came to be who they were as a Gay-Christian or Ex-Gay Christian. The problem is so many churches, even if they say they are open, do not put forth the time or effort to actually love "these people"... We have much work to do as a Church. But, in order to accept I can not agree with changing standards that Jesus obviously accepted, i.e. he never said marriage should be opened up to be between a man and a man, and he said divorce is horrible... Those standards I hope one day we can really uphold, helping all who seek to live fully in the grace of God.
ReplyDelete