Dear United Methodist Church,
I’m Mark McElroy, and I’m a Methodist.
This week, the Methodist Church’s highest court refused to reconsider a ruling that allows local ministers to “refuse church membership” to those they deem unworthy — in this case, The Gays.
My primary concern is that the court’s decision may confuse our members … and even open the door for legal action against the church. With an eye toward avoiding both confusion and the courts, I’d like to make a few suggestions.
1) Change the church’s advertising tagline. Currently, the United Methodist Church’s motto is “Open Minds. Open Hearts. Open Doors.” That has a great ring to it, but my fear is that, given the clergy’s court-supported right to closed minds and closed doors, continued use of this tagline may leave us open to charges of false advertising.
Given the recent turn of events, I suggest we go with “Pass the Test, and Be Our Guest.” This motto portrays our current practice with greater accuracy and honesty, and it will communicate our policies more clearly to potential members.
Plus, it sounds better than my number two choice, “Sometimes Open, Sometimes Not, So Please Check with the Local Pastor before Attempting to Join the Church.”
2) Clarify the church’s position on The Gays. Now that it’s clear that local ministers have the right to exclude the unworthy from church membership, some members may be asking, “What should we do with our current Gays? Do we have to get rid of them? And, if we do, what will the church do without a choir?”
Clearly, this kind of confusion is not in the church’s best interest. I suggest you put out a helpful FAQ (frequently asked questions) sheet. In it, you could address questions like the one I just mentioned … with church-approved answers like this one:
Cast out your Gays? Heavens, no! To be very clear: the high court’s ruling applies only to new Gays who want to join the church. For all practical purposes, you should consider your old Gays — the ones who managed to squeak through the doors of the Kingdom before we slammed them shut, and who currently support the church with their time, talents, and tithes — “grandfathered.”
Does this ruling have any implications for existing gay members at all? Frankly, yes: it sends them a strong message! As long as they’re willing to go through life as quiet, marginalized little geldings, they are welcome to participate fully in the Kingdom of God. But now, should your Gays get uppity, this new ruling gives you something you can use to keep them in their place. There’s nothing like the threat of excommunication to shut the mouth of that fag on the Worship Committee who keeps whining about buying new altar cloths!
3) Help members deal with problematic Scripture. On those rare days when Methodists actually crack open a Bible, they may stumble on Scriptures which seem to point fingers at the practices of our current church leadership, like Matthew 23:13:
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
It’s pretty awkward and embarrassing when that rascally Jesus starts saying things that appear to speak directly to the actions of Methodist clergy! But it doesn’t have to be. Perhaps the high court could release a memo like this one, providing strategies for dealing with Scriptures like these:
From: The Methodist High Court
To: All Church Members
Re: Disturbing Scriptures
When confronted by passages of Scripture that seem to conflict with church practice, the Methodist Church’s highest officials recommend that members take action immediately:
– Find a black magic marker.
– Carefully strike out the offensive passages.
Then, when friends and relatives ask, “Why is the Methodist Church condoning actions that the Bible condemns as hypocritical?”, you can honestly answer, “My Bible doesn’t say that!”
In closing, let me just say that I hope these suggestions will be taken the spirit they’re offered. I look forward to your reply!
From the Back Pew,
Mark
As usual you have such a way with words. I’m sharing your letter with the Couples Class group. Bravo (and three snaps!)
Oh the number of Black Marker sales shall riseth. You should send this to the Black Marker company so they can use it as a sales pitch as well.
Right-o on the over all statement. Well said.
hehe! Have you ever heard the song Rebel Jesus sung by the Chieftains? You might like it. Myself, I’m disappointed by the Baptists. When I was growing up, they taught us not only about scripture, but about the priesthood of the believer, that each of us has our own connection to God and we are our own priests, our own conduit to God through Christ. No one else is in charge of our belief but us. Well, that’s gone down in flames, hasn’t it?
Bravo for your letter!I truly believe that decision 1032 may be the turning point in the gay Methodist debate. Many of the Methodists that didn’t care about the issue in the past have been shocked into the reality of what happens to a church when we let the IRD and others nose into our business too much.
I enjoyed this post very much. (Two years after the fact.) I’m writing a piece in my blog about how the UMC’s very “open” and inviting marketing campaign caught my eye, and will be posting a link here as an example of “engaging advertising, but maybe not ACCURATE advertising.”Nicely written piece.Best wishes to you
Very interesting…I agree with welcoming all, but vows of membership state “…reject the evil powers of the world, and repent of their sin…confess Jesus as Savior…promise to serve Him as their Lord.” Mark must have blacked out the places in the Bible that say homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:18-32 speaks strongly of this)–and the place in 1 John 3 that tells us we can not claim to know God if we habitually, intentionally go on sinning–and the place in Matthew 18 which tells us to confront a sinful behavior in a brother. This means all sinful behavior–you can’t pick and choose and say this sin is okay and this one is not…We can welcome all, but the vows state–repent–there’s only one way to interpret that.
Hi, Pat. Thanks for stopping by.
I assure you that I’ve not blacked out any of the passages in my Bible. I have, however, spent a lifetime trying to read those verses *in context*. It’s a practice I recommend highly, especially to those who make a sport of preaching to others.
While I have not blacked out a word in my Bible, you have, apparently, added some words to yours. You claim Romans 1 says “homosexuality is a sin” and that it “speaks strongly of this” … yet the word “homosexual” does not appear in Romans 1 in any translation I can find.
Pat, to imply that Romans 1 uses the word “homosexual” is, to say it plainly, deceitful. In your Bible, does Romans 1 condemn deceit? If it does, would that condemnation apply to you?
Since Romans 1 does not use the term “homosexual,” we are no longer talking about what Romans 1 actually says, but, rather, about *Pat’s opinion* about whatever activity Romans 1 actually describes.
Your *opinion* about Scripture, Pat, is not the same thing as Scripture. Your opinion is not, and should never be confused with, God’s word.
I dunno, Pat. Strictly from what you’ve posted here, you seem a bit … eager … to assert that Matthew 18 authorizes you, personally, to go around confronting sinful behavior. Certainly, the Christ, with the Christ’s perfect understanding of God’s perfect Word, could do that with authority.
Me? I’m imperfect. I know I’m imperfect. What’s more, I’m perfectly willing to admit that I have an imperfect grasp of God’s word, and that my ability to understand and apply that word is very severely limited by my imperfections.
As a result, I’m not so much interested in evaluating the quality and validity of others’ relationship with God. Instead, I tend to focus on managing my own relationship with God … something Christ’s sacrifice empowers me to do for myself, thanks, without submitting myself, my life, or my relationship with God (or, for that matter, my relationship with my partner) for your evaluation or approval.
Thanks for the not so loving “confrontation” Mark, but though Romans 1 doesn’t say the word “homosexual” it does describe the act of homosexuality in Rom 1:26 and 27 “Because of this God gave them over to their shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”If this isn’t homosexuality, don’t know what else you can call this–do you? And though it doesn’t say “sin” outright–acts of “perversion” can’t be interpreted any other way–in context of course.
Thanks for your comments, Mark. A few years ago, I got tossed out of this “Open Minds, Open Hearts, Open Doors” organization because I refused to stop blessing gay unions. Nor would my bishop (though I had been an elder for 34 years) allow me 5 minutes to address the annual conference. Keep at it from the inside, Mark. I’ll keep doing my dance on my side of the fence. Methodists do some good things. Just wish they’d follow their motto.