Hate Mail Disguised As Love Letters

I’ve kept a file since my first General Conference in 1988 of the letters, phone calls, conversations and emails detailing the “concerns” individuals and congregations raised in preparation of the quadrennial meeting. This file is a reminder of the diversity of opinion in our denomination, the level of fear and disrespect still rampant in our churches and conferences, the heartfelt passion people bring to various issues, and just how far we still are from the kingdom/kin-dom/realm of the Almighty. I will make this statement at the outset — knowing it will do little good — to frame my comments. I do not think we should frame our disagreements in battle terms: win/lose, right/wrong, us/them. We are human beings and we will have very strong opinions and beliefs which will be in conflict from time to time. This is healthy and good. It is when we resort to hateful rhetoric, angry contempt, petty bigotry and spiteful attack dressed up in self-righteousness and fake Christian piety that I feel we have a serious problem. Is the majority of it lodged in simple ignorance? Certainly, but it goes beyond that.

The following examples may illustrate:

From 1988 (Northern New Jersey)

If any of our Christian money goes to support people with AIDS my family will leave the church. They get what they deserve.

Why do we have to support minorities? Why can’t they have their own churches? They think and talk differently than we do, and I am afraid they are taking over… We should never have let our (italics mine) slaves go to church.

Why are we even talking about gays? The Bible says ‘NO’

I don’t know if General Conference is the right place to bring this up, but are we ever going to ask the question, “Should women be allowed to be ministers. The Bible says they should not be allowed to speak up in church.

Please, please, please protect us from the Religious Right. Have you seen their agenda? We must not let the lunatics run the asylum. These people must be stopped now!

From 1996 (Nashville, Tennessee and from all across America — I was working for the General Board of Discipleship at the time)

God hates fags. If Methodists love God, they will hate fags, too.

I don’t know how a Democrat can claim to be a Christian. They want to kill babies, give condoms to children, protect serial killers, promote homosexuality, kill big business, and raise our taxes. In what universe are any of these things Christian?

We have to stop the liberal agenda to destroy the church and undermine God’s kingdom. We may quickly be coming to a time where violence is our only alternative. When people don’t listen, Christians need to act.

What will it take to make Church and Society go away? It would be nice if we could do it with legislative action at General Conference, but it may only be possible with explosives.

From 2004 (Nashville, and points global — still at GBOD )

Perhaps it is time for the Methodist church to wake up to the fact that we live in Bush’s America. We don’t tolerate sin, we don’t coddle terrorists, we don’t take crap from anybody, and we aren’t bleeding heart Socialists. The time has come for our church to take a stand and BE CHRISTIAN!

You need to understand that if the church votes to tolerate gays it will split the church. I guarantee you, the 99% of us who love the Lord will be out the door if you let the other 1% have their way.

I love God, I love my church and I would do anything for Jesus. I believe sinners go to hell, and I do not want them running the church. This is why I oppose homosexuals in church.

No to abortion! No to queers! Yes to the death penalty! No to science that plays God. You have been warned!

And, now again, in 2012 it starts all over. I am not going to quote the current batch, because they are no different from any of those above. I count 127 different messages all of a similar stripe; all couched in terms of loving Christians speaking their heart before General Conference. I assume most of these people to be normal, well-meaning, sincere individuals who are motivated by what they believe to be solid, accurate, valid and moral worldviews. To me, this is our greatest challenge. We speak of diversity in terms of face, gender, age, education and economics, but we do not fully engage the concept of our theological and ecclesial diversity. This is the diversity that may actually destroy us, because we are not working to foster structures and processes that allow us to disagree well in true fellowship and Christian love.

I have said before that my default position is this: everyone is right… to some degree. The corollaries to this are:

no one is 100% right 100% or the time
no one defends a position that they know or believe to be false
being misguided, ignorant, biased, stubborn, recalcitrant and opinionated = being human
together we are better off than divided
focusing on what we hold in common offers more possibilities than focusing on our differences
we all benefit when we put the good of the community ahead of individual agendas

If our God is a God of love whose primary desire is reconciliation and restoration, who sent a Savior as a bridge to extend the offer of grace to humankind, and who continues to empower and inspire through the Holy Spirit to destroy the dividing walls and bring us to unity in one body, then who are we to work so hard to thwart this will? I mean, let’s get over ourselves. The vision God delivers to God’s people is to become Christ’s own body in the world. All of our energy, efforts, engagement and enthusiasm should be to create, to heal, to connect, to build rapport, and to become one in Christ. If sin, brokenness, bad-behavior, ill-will, judgmentalism, disrespect and open hostility exempt us from the kingdom, we are in deep doo-doo. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and since this is true, why do we waste so much time trying to find a reason to hate someone else?

The irrational paradox I have never been able to reconcile is simply this: for Christians who judge the person or practices of another to be sinner or sin, shouldn’t we want those we deem sinners IN the church rather than OUT? If our purpose on earth is to bring people to Jesus the Christ, creating barriers to keep those who need God most from the church is indefensible. There should be a place for everyone in church — all of us are in the act of becoming. This is not to say anything goes, or that we tolerate any and all behavior and simply say, “Well, what can you expect? We’re all just sinners!” In true community, we are constantly striving to determine what it means for us to “do no harm, do all the good we can, and to attend to the ordinances of God.” We don’t let embezzlers manage the books, child molesters teach children’s Sunday school, or those with criminal records take the youth group on retreat. We use some common sense, and we make decisions together as a community. This is the heart of accountability. We do it together, and we do it with everyone inside instead of deciding who belongs and who doesn’t. Were we to simply accept the fact that there is no “them,” there in ONLY “us” we would be a different kind of people, a different kind of church.

Wouldn’t it be amazing if General Conference could be a model of true community instead of a mere legislative body? Wouldn’t it be cool if we would spend as much time discerning God’s will for God’s church as we do trying to institutionalize the church we want? Wouldn’t it be wonderful is “God is love” were more than a bumper sticker or a coffee mug slogan? You know what? We could make it happen if we really wanted it to. Problem is, we simply don’t like some of “those people,” and if we let “them” in then we don’t think we’ll stay…

Rate this:

19 responses to “Hate Mail Disguised As Love Letters”

Becca Clark

March 12, 2012

This is heartbreaking. From all sides, in all places, we are broken, and we take that brokenness out on one another. I grieve for us as a church and as a people. And yet, I hold out hope. Brokenness is something God can work with.

Reply
kmom

March 9, 2012

I think it would help if we could deeply understand that all of us (including me) have sinned and fall short. And we all continue to do so. I suspect that most of us also have sins for which we may or may not repent and still do sin again.
And that God hates all sin. all of it. not just theirs. Sin moves us away from God. I believe that God sees sin as sin—-all of them equally repugnant. So mine is not “little” while yours is “big”.
From that level viewing point, perhaps we are more able to communicate with each other?
And why are we demanding that someone else needs to be sin-free before they can be part of church, when we are full up with sinners?
How can they learn of Jesus’s love from us, if we shut them out?
It is God’s amazing love that helps us to transform.

Reply
Adam

March 7, 2012

I find it strange that a blog with so many Christian readers forecast only a split will happen over these issues. Do we not worship a God who restored the greatest split in history? Are all these dire forecasts forgetting what our God is capable of?

Perhaps I’m being overly optimistic or even foolish, but I would rather be a fool of faith than a wise man lacking faith.

“Your will be done on EARTH as it is in heaven.” Amen.

Reply
Kevin

March 7, 2012

“shouldn’t we want those we deem sinners IN the church rather than OUT?”

I absolutely agree. Unfortunately when it comes to homosexual behavior one group wants to see repentance and turning away from sin while the other does not recognize this as sin at all and wants everyone to embrace this new view. I am not smart enough to see a way through this. All I see coming is a split.

Reply
David Kueker

March 7, 2012

The diffusion of innovations posits a standard bell curve distribution of people based on their openness to change … and that this distribution applies to any and all groups of people.

Identifying the segments in the bell curve “adopter framework” is helpful because it helps you to understand how to communicate and persuade people to change. Here’s a link to a visual parable on the five types: http://www.disciplewalk.com/parable_light_bulb_2.html

I believe that 90% of innovations (attempts to make changes) fail because the innovative minority (16%) has an inability, almost a learning disability, in being able to communicate their propositions to the pragmatic majority in a way that will allow the 84% to accept a proposal for change.

The process to create change in cultures is outlined brilliantly in Geoffrey Moore’s classic book “Crossing the Chasm.”

Hope not to be offensive but, based on these insights, everything most innovators know about facilitating change is wrong … and the results we are getting are not because “those” people are “twisted, sick, stupid, crazy or bad” but because we simply do not know how to communicate with someone who does not think like us, and are unwilling to learn and unwilling to change our approach in order to be successful.

Reply
1. John
  
  March 8, 2012
  
  Perhaps some innovations fail because they are not good ideas. We, along with the other mainline denominations, innovated our way into this mess. Maybe going along with the latest fad is not the best way to proceed. In scripture, Christ tells us that we will bear much fruit if we abide in Him and He abides in us. Somehow innovative organizational and management approaches seem so much more appealing than going to the Lord. Perhaps because they flatter our pride. With the latest techniques, we can grow the church without God. (Or so we think!) I wonder what would happen if we repented of our pride and asked ourselves what a church that God would want to have grow and bear Kingdom fruit would be doing, and then spent time in serious prayer and the other means of grace so that we would abide in Christ and Him in us. Then we could claim God’ prmise and let Him deal with the fruit and vitality.
  
  Reply
orter.t

March 7, 2012

I have been monitoring the homosexuality issue on various fronts. The problem is coming from both sides. The pros don’t seem any more willing to compromise than those against. Overall my impression is the proponents want this at all cost, even if it causes a split. One proponent was absolutely fine that “a significant miniority would leave”; the United Methodist Church would be OK. My unofficial instinct is that more people on the against side are more worried and saddened about a possible split than those on the pro side–and again, that is my unofficial instinct. More than once I have monitored reponses to a blog on the issue and the response from a person on the “pro side” to some one taking a very reasonable and civil “against stance” is throw down the homophobic card. I recently read an article where the author characterized those for full inclusion of homosexuals as being “progressive” which then means those against are…what? Interestingly, that same article corroborated what I read elsewhere that the greatest loss of membership in the UMC has been in the areas of the country where full inclusion of homosexuals is most accepted. I this a clue? I don’t know, but I find it interesting and curious. And yes, I know you can get a significant correlation between just about anything.

And then there is me, a well educated, reasonable person who loves the church but feels caught in the middle, wondering when we will have dissected the Bible so much there is nothing left to teach, thouroughly disliking the church has been forced to elevate one thing to the level of The Cardinal Sin, not wanting to exclude homosexuals from the church, but am not convivnced their relationships should be endorsed by the church on the same grounds a lot of human actions should not be endorsed by the church–and I have done reading on the subject beyond the Bible.

How does the line get blurred; how do we stop this standing on either side of the line stating our personal beliefs/understanding on the subject and that is as far as it gets? It takes both sides to step forward and blur the line.

From another pwerspective, given the known history of what a decision for full inclusion has caused in other mainline denominations and the current decline of the United Methodist Church, when does the health of the church take precedent? The meltdown of a Lutheran church in this town over this issue has been devastating! It has had repurcssions in the UMC here and I am fairly certain what will happen to it if full inclusion of homosexuals is approved. This UMC has experienced a noticeable decline in people and money over the last four years.

I am tired of seeing this issue divide The American Church over and over again–this is not good–Christianity is in enough trouble here in America. Where is the logic in including one group of people when it is known others will leave? Is anybody else concerned from that perspective?

Reply
1. John
  
  March 8, 2012
  
  Your point about the health of the church is well taken. Empirically, there is no more effecitve way to decrease membership than to have a major fight over the homosexual agenda or to accept practicing homosexual clergy. The only churches that lose membership faster than the Methodists (on a percentage basis) are the churches that do this — e.g., Episcopalians and Presbyterians. In this fight one side believes that scripture is quite clear on the issue and the other side believes that full inclusion is a matter of social justice. Blurring the line is not possible unless these positions can be changed. Under these circumstances Holy conferencing tends to transition rpaidly into argument. However, since the two sides are arguing from such radically different premises, agreement is not likely to be possible. I must say that I am amused by the presumption of the argument. I can just image the Lord waiting hear the votes of 400 and some Methodist delegates to determine whether homosexual practice is really sinful. Perhaps we should first repent of our pride.
  
  Reply
Creed Pogue

March 6, 2012

The diagnosis in the Call to Action was correct. Our problems are trust and distance. The “solutions” seem designed to exacerbate the problems.

A lot of the discussion about “holy conferencing” revolves around issues of homosexuality. One of the biggest points of contention is that the “leaders” of the church are unwilling to uphold the Discipline. We all have a right to argue whether various provisions in the Discipline are “correct” or “fair.” But, if everyone (espcially the Bishops) chooses which provisions to uphold and which ones to disregard, then you simply wind up with anarchy. The DeLong case was an exemplar of the problem. From the statements of the defense, it was evident that Bishops Rader and Lee were very much aware of Rev. DeLong’s situation yet chose not to take action until Rev. DeLong created a “test case” where the conspiracy of silence went into full effect.

It is possible that various sections of the Discipline would be changed in Tampa, but truthfully it is highly unlikely. So, will we see more demonstrations on the floor and more chalices broken? It is impossible to reconcile that conduct with a plea for “holy conferencing.”

Reply