The trial of Amy DeLong, a lesbian elder who performed a same-sex union in Wisconsin, went along almost unnoticed here in the Philippines. It is perhaps because of the current crisis that pushes us Filipinos to the brink of division on this eastern part of United Methodism.
A church trial was convened from June 21 to 23 because of two charges pressed against DeLong: (1) for officiating a union for a lesbian couple on September of 2009; and, (2) for supposedly being a self-avowed practicing homosexual. The jury unanimously declared her guilty of violating the church ban on celebrating same-sex unions. But she was acquitted, 12-1, on the second charge. You may read more on this here.
Though United Methodism is generally liberal in the West, there are still lands where she grabs a foothold that are lesser “progressive” in theology and practice. When news like this hits our shores, there are some entities that should shock us.
Twenty-Day Suspension
Last March 12, a certain TV show headed by Willie Revillame became an object of disagreement for having an episode that featured a dancing boy which was, according to the regulatory board, “unfit for public viewing.” A one-month suspension was issued against the show. That is a 30-day suspension. Now, I can’t help but use this for comparison. Though DeLong was unanimously found guilty of violating church law, she only received a 20-day suspension. Moreover, the suspension given to her is not really a penalty but is to be used for spiritual discernment. So shocking to know that here, we give 30-day suspensions for dancing boys while in the west, they reward 20-day retreats to those who openly insult church law and GOD’s Word.
Rule for Practicing
For the second charge against the lesbian elder, she was found innocent. She was not proven to be a “self-avowed practicing homosexual.” This is behind the fact that DeLong had a 16-year homosexual relationship with a certain Val Zellmer. The shocking comes from how the Judicial Council defines a “self-avowed practicing homosexual.”
In response, in Decision 920, in exercising its responsibility to render declaratory decisions on the meaning, application and effect of specific disciplinary provisions (¶ 2610), the Judicial Council unanimously held that such a statement was sufficient to subject such person’s membership in her ministerial office to review under ¶ 359.1 of the Discipline. If in the course of such review, such person affirmed that the person was engaged in genital sexual activity with a person of the same gender, such person would have openly acknowledged that the person is a self-avowed practicing homosexual.
This is absurd. This virtually establishes nothing. As long as the respondents shut their mouths on things about their sexual activities (like DeLong), lock the door, and cover themselves in thick blankets, they are still not considered as self-avowed practicing homosexuals… even if they become registered committed partners.
Lot in Trouble
When the chair of Wisconsin Annual Conference’s Board of Ordained Ministry, Richard Strait, occupied the witness stand, he confessed that if performing same-sex unions "were a heinous crime, there would be a whole lot of us in deep trouble." This again sounds so shocking. “A lot of us” from the chairman of the Board of Ordained Ministry? His statement implies at least three things: (1) that violating the church law in their annual conference is rampant, it is normal; (2) that church leaders and ministers are fully aware of these violations; and, (3) that for them violating the church law is not a violation at all, it is not a heinous crime.
Juror’s “No Harm”
Although the members of the jury that handled DeLong’s trial are generally silent, there is one name that participates actively in news articles and blog posts. He is juror Bill McBride, a pastor and a blogger. The following are glimpses of his comments.
“The word ‘penalty phase’ really has no place in a church that should always have its mind and eye toward restoration and reconciliation.”
“… the goal of the ‘trial court’ was to rebuild covenant, seek to 'Do no harm' as Wesley stated.”
There is perhaps a misunderstanding of Wesley’s “Do no harm” rule. McBride seems not to realize that his version of doing no harm also collides against Wesley himself when the latter wrote, “After diligent inquiry made, I removed all those from the congregation of the faithful whose behaviour or spirit was not agreeable to the gospel of Christ; openly declaring the objections I had to each, that others might fear and cry to God for them.” And again, “I met the classes, but found no increase in the society. No wonder, for discipline had been quite neglected, and without this, little good can be done among the Methodists.” It is known that Methodism in the west is decreasing rapidly. If McBride would ask Wesley why, he would receive an answer that would shatter his own “Do no harm.”
Both camps that debate on the issue of sexuality are bracing themselves as the General Conference 2012 is less than a year away. However, the battle is not just on keeping the words printed intact in the Book of Discipline. The battle is also in securing the Discipline of its power. For, though the words are staying intact, the power behind the words is obviously shrinking.
(A member of DeLong's Trial Team had posted a comment which you can read here.)
Post a Comment >>
(A member of DeLong's Trial Team had posted a comment which you can read here.)
Post a Comment >>
