Brief Documents Group’s Opposition to Biblical, Church Teachings on Homosexuality

The following brief was submitted to the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church for a case in its Fall 2006 session. The author of the brief is the Rev. Karen Booth, a UMAction Steering Committee member and the Executive Director of Transforming Congregations.  Although this brief  is a year-and-a-half old, its documentation of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice’s pro-homosexuality position is still quite timely for decisions to be made at the upcoming 2008 General Conference of The United Methodist Church.

In this specific case involving the Minnesota Annual Conference’s joining the state chapter of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), the Judicial Council side-stepped a direct ruling on the main concerns in this brief. The council’s ruling essentially stated that current church law does not prohibit annual conferences from being formal members of organizations whose positions “may differ” from those expressed in the United Methodist Social Principles. 

CONTENTS OF THE BRIEF

I.          Facts of the Case

II.         Portions of the 2005-2008 United Methodist Social Principles at Issue

III.       Other Portions of the 2004 Book of Discipline of The United MethodistChurch at Issue

IV.       Argument of the Brief

                        TheMinnesota RCRC and Its Parent Body

                        RCRC-produced Literature

                        Public Stands of RCRC Leaders

                        Reports on RCRC’s National Black Religious Summit on Sexuality

                        Conclusion

V.        Relief Requested 

I.          Facts Of The Case

At its 2006 session, the Minnesota Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church adopted by majority vote legislative item #533, which was entitled “Join the Minnesota Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice” (EXHIBIT A). Implementation of this legislation would require the following specific actions:

1. The Church in Society Ministry Team will select a person to represent the Minnesota United Methodist Annual Conference on the Minnesota Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice board.
2. Minnesota Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice will be included as an advance special of the Minnesota Annual Conference. No apportioned funds will be given to Minnesota Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice without approval of the entire annual conference session either by separate action or as a specific line item in a budget.

Before the end of the annual conference session, Rev. Peter Milloy requested a Bishop’s Decision of Law on Action Item #533. His motion read: “Was the adoption of Action Item #533 in accordance with the Book of Discipline if the Minnesota Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice supports a position on abortion that is different from that found in our Social Principles?”

In her “Bishop’s Ruling on Action Item #533” made in response to Rev. Milloy’s motion, Sally Dyck, Resident Bishop of Minnesota, made the following declarative statements:

• “My ruling is that the Minnesota Annual Conference may officially join the Minnesota Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC).”
• “Therefore, RCRC does not conflict with the Social Principles ….”

In accordance with ¶2609.6 of the2004 Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, the Judicial Council is reviewing this decision of law as part of the Council’s Docket for Fall 2006. 

II.        Portions of the 2005-2008 United Methodist Social Principles at Issue

From the Preface: “The Social Principles are a prayerful and thoughtful effort on the part of the General Conference to speak to the human issues in the contemporary world from a sound biblical and theological foundation as historically demonstrated in United Methodist traditions.” 

¶161C:  “We affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman. We believe that God’s blessing rests upon such marriage, whether or not there are children of the union. We reject social norms that assume different standards for women than for men in marriage. We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

¶161D:  “God’s plan is for lifelong, faithful marriage. The church must be on the forefront of premarital and postmarital counseling in order to create and preserve strong marriages. However, when a married couple is estranged beyond reconciliation, even after thoughtful consideration and counsel, divorce is a regrettable alternative in the midst of brokenness. We grieve over the devastating emotional, spiritual, and economic consequences of divorce for all involved and are concerned about high divorce rates.”

From ¶161G:

• Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are only clearly affirmed in the marriage bond.”“
• “We believe that sexual relations where one or both partners are exploitative, abusive, or promiscuous are beyond the parameters of acceptable Christian behavior and are ultimately destructive to individuals, families, and the social order.”
• TheUnitedMethodistChurch does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.” “

III.       Other Portions of the 2004 Book of Discipline of The United MethodistChurch at Issue

¶612.19: Among the functions that each annual conference council on finance and administration “shall have authority and responsibility to perform” is the following: “To ensure that no annual conference board, agency, committee, commission, or council shall give United Methodist funds to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality.  The council shall have the right to stop such expenditures.  This restriction shall not limit the Church’s ministry in response to the HIV epidemic, nor shall it preclude funding for dialogs or educational events where the Church’s official position is fairly and equally represented.”

¶628.4:  “The conference board of church and society shall serve to connect the General Board of Church and Society and the district and local churches in relating the gospel of Jesus Christ to the members of the Church and to the persons and structures of the communities, nation, and world in which they live. Program shall be developed that provides education and action on issues confronting the Church consistent with the Social Principles and the policies adopted by the General Conference.”

IV.       Argument of the Brief

Introduction

Rev. Milloy’s request for a Bishop’s decision of law addressed the Disciplinary propriety of Action Item #533, “Join the Minnesota Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice,” which was adopted by majority vote at the 2006 session of the Minnesota Annual Conference. While his question specifically asked about conflict between the respective positions on abortion of the Minnesota Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and of the United Methodist Social Principles, Bishop Dyck quite broadly ruled that “RCRC does not conflict with the Social Principles.” She did not limit this declared lack of conflict to any specific part of the Social Principles (such as ¶161J on abortion), and therefore framed her decision as a broad ruling that there is no point of conflict between the United Methodist Social Principles and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), the parent body of the Minnesota affiliate that Action Item #533 would have the Minnesota Annual Conference officially join. 

In her ruling, Bishop Dyck did not address the matter of RCRC’s advocacy on homosexuality-related matters. This brief will argue that Bishop Dyck was incorrect to rule that “RCRC does not conflict with the Social Principles,” as RCRC does in fact contradict the Social Principles on matters of human sexuality, and that Action Item #533 is thus impermissible according to the standards of the 2004 Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church. 

The Minnesota Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and Its Parent Body

As a state affiliate of RCRC, the Minnesota Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice is dedicated to promoting the work and agenda of its national parent body. 

The Frequently Asked Questions section of the national RCRC website (EXHIBIT B) explains that “[t]he Religious Coalition’s national office operates as a hub that connects and coordinates the activities of the constituent components: national member groups, local affiliates, the Clergy for Choice Network, and individual supporters. The national office has a number of functions: … designing and implementing programs, serving as a clearinghouse for information, and providing technical assistance and training to affiliates.” 

Another page of the national RCRC website (EXHIBIT C) states that “RCRC works at the state level with our affiliates.” RCRC’s website includes another page promoting ways for one to “GET INVOLVED” in supporting its work (EXHIBIT D). One of the main suggested actions in the list is to contact one of RCRC’s state affiliates. The listing of these affiliates (EXHIBIT E), including the Minnesota Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, states that “[t]he affiliates of the Religious Coalition are involved in … implementing RCRC programs … at the community and state level” and that they help disseminate “the educational resources of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice”. In its flyer entitled “Religious Pro-Choice Americans speak out” (EXHIBIT F), RCRC speaks of itself as “comprising Protestant, Jewish, and other denominations and faith groups, the Clergy for Choice Network, and state affiliates throughout the country.” 

So clearly, as a state affiliate of RCRC, the work and mission of the Minnesota Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice can be accurately understood to be part of the work and mission of its national parent body. Thus, for an entity to “officially join” (in the words of Action Item # 533) the Minnesota Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice amounts to joining and supporting the work of national RCRC. 

An article in the April 27, 2002 edition of the Minneapolis Star Tribune (EXHIBIT G ¹) identifies a Rev. Nadean Bishop as the “executive director of the Minnesota Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice” and as a “lesbian partner.” An article in the October 4, 1997 issue of that same newspaper (EXHIBIT H ²) also notes Rev. Nadean Bishop’s role as the “chair of the Re-Imagining Center for Theological Exploration” associated with the controversial Re-Imagining conferences. 

RCRC-produced Literature

One part of the RCRC-produced article, “The Really Good News: What the Bible Says About Sex” (EXHIBIT I), argues at length that “[i]t is, at best, inaccurate to use scripture to condemn committed, consensual same-gender sexual relationships.” The article also asserts: “In contrast to its position on same gender sex, the Bible clearly condemns adultery.” This amounts to saying that the Bible has no clear position on “same gender sex.” The title of this document attaches qualitative value to such assertions, suggesting that biblical teaching not truly being opposed to “same gender sex” would amount to “Really Good News.” 

By contrast, the United Methodist Social Principles clearly declare that “the practice of homosexuality” is “incompatible with Christian teaching” (¶161G). Furthermore, the Social Principles declare that “sexual relations are only clearly affirmed in the marriage bond” (¶161G) and that marriage is to be understood as a covenant “between a man and a woman” (¶161C). 

The Preface to the Social Principles explains that “[t]he Social Principles are a prayerful and thoughtful effort on the part of the General Conference to speak to the human issues in the contemporary world from a sound biblical and theological foundation as historically demonstrated in United Methodist traditions.” Thus, the Social Principles not only have an unqualified moral opposition to the practice of homosexuality, but they also present this position as coming from “a sound biblical and theological foundation.” This is clearly in conflict with RCRC’s assertion in this article that opposition to homosexual practice does not truly come from a sound biblical foundation. 

Also, towards the end of this RCRC-produced article, “an urgent need for a new sexual theology” is announced. According to the author, this new view of sexuality “will celebrate fidelity in our commitments without legalistic prescription as to the precise forms such fidelity must make” and “will be an ethic whose principles apply equally and without double standards to persons of both genders, of all … sexual orientations.” 

This conflicts sharply with the aforementioned position of the Social Principles that marriage is only appropriate for heterosexual couples and that it is “incompatible with Christian teaching” for someone who may experience a homosexual “orientation” to sexually act on it. 

In contrast to this RCRC-endorsed “new sexual theology,” the Social Principles do in fact make what could be called “legalistic prescription as to the precise forms” that “fidelity in our commitments” “must make.” These prescriptions are that “sexual relations are only clearly affirmed in the marriage bond” (¶161G), which should be understood as a covenant “between a man and a woman” (¶161C) that God wants to be “lifelong” and “faithful” (¶161D). The Social Principles’ use of singular pronouns before the “man” and “woman” whose marriage is the context within which “sexual relations are only clearly affirmed” rules out (one might say “legalistically”) more expansive definitions of “fidelity” that appear to be included in the RCRC-promoted “new sexual theology.”  Furthermore, the teaching of the Social Principles that “sexual relations where one or both partners are … promiscuous are beyond the parameters of acceptable Christian behavior” (¶161G) amounts to another “legalistic prescription” on fidelity, and is thus incompatible with RCRC’s “new sexual theology.”

Furthermore, “The Really Good News” conflicts with the Social Principles Preface’s aforementioned affirmation of the Bible (without excluding any of its portions) as an authoritative source for moral teaching when the author explicitly criticizes “the writings of Paul” in this paragraph:

“There is no question that certain church traditions have provided justification for sexual oppression. From the writings of Paul to those of Augustine and Aquinas–and through the current work of the Christian Coalition–parts of the Christian church have attempted to control, define, and limit sexual expression. In fact, it is clear that the mind/body dualism that characterizes much of Christian thought is the lens through which both the Bible and church traditions are used to limit people’s experience of their sexuality and, indeed, to promote systematic oppression of sexuality.”

Another RCRC-produced article, “Special Report on Sexuality Non-Education” (EXHIBIT J), strongly criticizes sex education programs that “attempt to stigmatize premarital sex as immoral and shameful.” While it has been demonstrated above that the United Methodist Social Principles similarly oppose extramarital sexual relations, this RCRC article treats that position very negatively, calling it “a narrow moral view” that is “supported by extremist organizations.” 

Some supporters of RCRC have countered similar points by arguing, as Action Item #533 did, that “membership does not require or imply conformity to all the actions and initiatives of the Coalition.” 

However, the freedom of The United Methodist Church and its related bodies to not be controlled by RCRC in their social witness is not the precise issue currently before the Judicial Council. The issue is whether Bishop Sally Dyck was correct to rule that “RCRC does not conflict with the Social Principles.” By producing and disseminating these articles which contradict the United Methodist Social Principles, RCRC is clearly working in opposition to the United Methodist Social Principles. 

Public Stands of RCRC Leaders

Several leaders of RCRC have quite publicly declared their opposition to the teachings of the United Methodist Social Principles on marriage and homosexuality. 

The Religious Declaration on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing (EXHIBIT K) calls for “[f]ull inclusion of women and sexual minorities in congregational life, including their ordination and the blessing of same-sex unions.” In a similar vein to the “new sexual ethic” advocated in the aforementioned “Really Good News” article (EXHIBIT I), the Religious Declaration asserts that “[o]ur culture needs a new sexual ethic focused on personal relationships and social justice rather than particular sex acts” and that this ethic “accepts no double standards and applies to all persons, without regard to … sexual orientation.” The list of endorsers of this Religious Declaration on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing (EXHIBIT L) includes “Rev. Dr. Nadean Bishop, University Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN” (the aforementioned Executive Director of the Minnesota Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice) and “Rev. Carlton Veazey” (the President and CEO of national RCRC), as well as “Rev. Cynthia S. Bumb, Missouri Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice”; “Rev.Linda Morgan Clark, Oklahoma Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Tulsa, OK”; “Rabbi Bonnie Margulis, Director of Clergy Programming, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice”; and “Rev. Dr. Katherine H. Ragsdale, Chair, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.” 

It may be suggested that these were all endorsing the statements as individuals, not on behalf of their organization. However, with the exceptions of Veazey and Bishop, each of their endorsements carried not only their own personal name but also the name of RCRC (or one of its state affiliates) without any qualifying statement. ³ Therefore, these other endorsers essentially used their leadership positions within RCRC to link the name and reputation of RCRC to the agenda of the Religious Declaration on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing. Furthermore, the endorsements of Veazey and Bishop make it clear that the Minnesota Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has been led by outspoken opponents of the teaching of The United Methodist Church on marriage and sex. 

A smaller-font version of this same declaration is displayed on the home page of the website of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing (EXHIBIT M), which describes itself elsewhere (EXHIBIT N) as a group that “promotes the goals and vision of the Religous [sic] Declaration”. Rev. Carlton Veazey, apparently in his capacity as “President, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice,” serves on the Advisory Board of this organization dedicated to opposing United Methodist teaching on homosexuality (EXHIBIT O). 

The “Theological Resources” section of the website of the Minnesota Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (EXHIBIT P) links to just two organizations, one of which is this Religious Institute. 

An item on the website of the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce (EXHIBIT Q) reports that Veazey, identified as “president and CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and founder of the Religious Coalition’s Black Church Initiative,” was a featured speaker at a pro-homosexuality “public forum” in 1999 alongside a prominent violator of United Methodist Church law related to marriage and homosexuality. An Associated Press article on this event (EXHIBIT R) makes clear that Veazey indicated his support of efforts to promote moral acceptance of homosexual practice. Both of these articles prominently associate the name and reputation of Veazey’s organization with the pro-homosexuality cause, without reporting that Veazey did anything to suggest that he was not speaking in his role as RCRC’s leader and foremost spokesman. 

Reports on RCRC’s National Black Religious Summit on Sexuality

A major program of RCRC is its annual “National Black Religious Summit on Sexuality.” Numerous reports reveal that countering the Social Principles’ position in ¶161G that homosexual practice is “incompatible with Christian teaching” has been a prominent part of this RCRC-organized conference in recent years. Such reporting includes several articles in major, well-respected newspapers. 

An article in the January 30, 2002 issue of the Boston Globe (EXHIBIT S ⁴) mentions this conference in an article on homosexuality and predominantly African-American churches. After some reporting that “much of the black church and some of its followers have branded homosexuality an ‘abomination’ and a threat to the black family,” there is a paragraph about historically African-American church leaders abandoning moral opposition to homosexual practice that ends with this sentence: “Programs such as the annual National Black Religious Summit on Sexuality in Washington educate pastors about homosexuality at a grass-roots level.”

The article continues by noting RCRC’s role in organizing the Summit and quoting RCRC president Carlton Veazey as saying that while “there’s a great resistance in the church because of ignorance and what they’ve been taught,” he believes that “the perception of the black church is changing as it relates to homosexuality,” thanks to pastors who have been “dealing with this issue in a very honest and straightforward way.”

The article goes on to say that “homophobia isn’t unique to the black church.” 

The context of the article strongly suggests that the change within black churches of which Veazey speaks positively (characterizing it as moving from “ignorance” to “dealing with this issue in a very honest and straightforward way”) is greater acceptance of homosexual practice. 

An article in the July 14, 2001 issue of the Washington Post on that year’s National Black Religious Summit on Sexuality (EXHIBIT T ⁵) reported that the RCRC-organized conference “signaled its support in particular for [U.S. Surgeon General David] Satcher’s recent report on sexual health issues,” which among other things “urged tolerance of homosexuality.” 

An article in the July 11, 1998 issue of the Baltimore Sun about that year’s RCRC-organized National Black Religious Summit on Sexuality (EXHIBIT U ⁶) reported that “[t]he Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice supports legalized abortion, sexuality education that includes acceptance of homosexuality, and pregnancy prevention through access to contraception.” This article goes on to report that while conference “organizers admitted” that “[a]ddressing the gay issue and calling for tolerance is a move that is likely to cause controversy and resistance among some in the black church,” the Rev. Madison T. Shockley saw it as “a justice issue” and asked “How can a church that has fought for justice and civil rights not fight for civil rights and justice for gay and lesbian people?” The message thus conveyed in the article is that promoting acceptance of homosexual practice in the name of “justice” was a part of that year’s National Black Religious Summit. 

Furthermore, firsthand reporting by the Institute on Religion & Democracy (IRD) on several of the past National Black Religious Summits also reveals a pattern of promotion of acceptance of homosexual practice. 

The IRD article on this year’s Summit (EXHIBIT V ⁷) reports that numerous speakers there, including the aforementioned Shockley, defended the moral acceptability of homosexual practice. This portrayal of a significant part of the conference’s agenda is corroborated by an attached copy of a recommended reading list that was distributed at the conference (EXHIBIT W). The book list includes works by such prominent pro-homosexuality activists as Keith Boykin, James A. Forbes, John Shelby Spong, and Mel White. 

An IRD article on RCRC’s 2002 Summit (EXHIBIT X ⁸) reports that acceptance of homosexual practice was also promoted there by gay rights activists Donna Payne of the Human Rights Campaign (a major gay rights organization) and Leonard Bates of the National Minority AIDS Council. This account is corroborated by attached copies of pages from the official “Guidebook” to that year’s summit (EXHIBIT Y) that confirm the facts that: RCRC’s President alluded to the Summit’s commitment to “develop[ing] serious dialogue on sexual orientation,” there was indeed a workshop on “Sexual Orientation: What Would Jesus Do?” led by Leonard Bates and Donna Payne, the work of Leonard Bates with National Minority AIDS Council involves significant work on homosexuality-related issues, and Donna Payne both works for the Human Rights Campaign and is involved with a congregation of the Metropolitan Community Churches, a largely homosexual denomination. 

Finally, the welcoming letter from RCRC President Carlton Veazey for the 2005 summit (EXHIBIT Z) employs the language of opponents of The United Methodist Church’s teaching on homosexuality when it says that “[w]e have dared to explore within our religious traditions the issues around sexual orientation and how to help our brothers and sisters who have suffered as a result of homophobia, even within our churches,” and goes on to encourage conference participants to “carry the word back about what is happening in progressive churches.” “Progressive” is a term of self-identification commonly used by congregations and individual churchgoers that disagree with the position of The United Methodist Church (and most other major denominations) that homosexual practice is inherently immoral. 

Conclusion

Thus, there is abundant evidence of the fact that a significant part of the work of RCRC, which Action Item #533 would have the Minnesota Annual Conference support through RCRC’sMinnesotaaffiliate, includes countering the teaching of the United Methodist Social Principles on matters of marriage and sexuality. The reality of this contradiction would in no way be negated if someone were to cite another portion of the Social Principles that may be in greater harmony with RCRC. If something contradicts any part of the Social Principles, then it is simply not accurate to say that it does not contradict the Social Principles. 

Therefore, Bishop Dyck was not correct to broadly rule that “RCRC does not conflict with the Social Principles.” 

Furthermore, the first provision of the Action Item on which Bishop Dyck was asked to rule, which charges the Minnesota Annual Conference’s Church and Society Ministry Team with supportively participating in the work of the Minnesota Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, would violate the requirement of ¶628.4 of the 2004 Book of Discipline that the program of each conference board of church and society be “consistent with the Social Principles and the policies adopted by the General Conference.” If something it not consistent with either the Social Principles or any other policy adopted by the General Conference, then one cannot honestly say that it is truly “consistent with the Social Principles and the policies adopted by the General Conference.”

Finally, there is the matter of the second provision of Action Item #533. This authorizes the establishment of an advance special of the Minnesota Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church through which funds would be contributed to support the work of RCRC through its Minnesotaaffiliate. However, it has been demonstrated above that a significant part of the work of RCRC involves actively promoting acceptance of the practice of homosexuality, contrary to our church’s Social Principles. Thus, part of this advance special money (which would qualify as “United Methodist funds”) would contribute to promoting the acceptance of homosexuality. Therefore, this second provision is in violation of ¶612.19 of the 2004 Book of Discipline, which prohibits the use of any “United Methodist funds” at the annual conference level “to promote the acceptance of homosexuality.” 

In her ruling, Bishop Dyck cited Judicial Council Decision #635, which declared that with regard to the question of whether it was permissible for funds of the Wisconsin Annual Conference to be used to benefit the work of the Wisconsin affiliate of RCRC’s predecessor body, Bishop David Lawson was correct to rule that “there is nothing [in the Discipline] to prevent the Wisconsin Annual Conference from considering and deciding its response to this issue.” However, that ruling was issued in 1990, and ¶612.19 was not added to the Book of Discipline until 14 years later at the 2004 General Conference (EXHIBIT AA). Bishop Dyck’s ruling did not address this highly relevant change to the Discipline since Judicial Council Decision #635 was issued. 

V.        Relief Requested

The Judicial Council should declare that Bishop Dyck was incorrect to rule that “RCRC does not conflict with the Social Principles” and should further declare that Action Item #533 is impermissible under ¶628.4 and ¶612.19 of the 2004 Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church.