I have always harbored a certain “pride”
about my affiliation with the American
Baptist Churches. Our tradition’s
distinctive principles of applying the
teachings of Scripture to our daily
lives with humility (out of reverence
for the sovereignty of God) has for me
always “rung true” with Theological and
Christological soundness. I have been
“proud” to walk my faith journey
surrounded by “so great a cloud of
witnesses” like Roger Williams, John
Leland, Adoniram Judson, Elizabeth
Barrett Montgomery, Walter Rauschenbusch,
Martin Luther King, Jr., E. Spencer
Parsons, Ralph H. Elliot, and Nancy
Hastings Sehested.
I walk my faith and ministry journey
with a certain assurance that I am
headed in a direction that is consistent
(if not a near miss) with the pathway
set by my Savior Jesus Christ. And yet,
I am keenly aware that “pride goeth…
before a fall” and that, for all my good
intentions and diligent pursuits as a
disciple, I must, in faithfulness,
confess that I could be wrong. In the
July 17th letter from Rev. Dr. A. Roy
Medley, General Secretary of the
American Baptist Churches USA, (which is
available on Sundays and through the
church office as well as posted on the
abc-usa website), I hear no confession
of humility. I hear no allowance that,
for all his best intentions, he could be
wrong and surrenders judgment to the
sovereignty of God. What I hear is a
haughtiness and presumption of absolute
knowledge of the ultimate truth of God’s
intention for human relational living.
What I sense is that he
has completely retracted his 2005 Biennial call for American
Baptists to “walk with one another in the midst of strong
differences…(to take) the path of radical discipleship…(and) dare
not choose the wrong road…the road that leads to separation. That
choice will certainly unite you with like-minded people, but will
give you small souls…The radical call of Jesus doesn’t make us
comfortable.” In that address, Medley urged us to “take the
road-less-traveled – the rich road of love of one another and
service for Christ in the midst of our differences.”
Now, one year later, perhaps succumbing to fears of monies being
withheld by conservative churches intolerant of the principles of
soul liberty and local autonomy, and pushing his office to take a
definitive stand against homosexuality, Medley has retreated from
the road of “radical discipleship” and vowed to take a personal and
professional stand against endorsing exhibitors at future biennial
conventions, chaplain candidates or staffing positions within the
denomination who do not adhere to the persuasion of declaring the
practice of homosexuality an anathema! To this end he calls all
peoples of the ABC to this same criteria for “high moral and ethical
responsibility” in their own lives! My mind is very troubled by
this dramatic shift in the politicking of our General Secretary’s
Office. It offends me that he would quote the 1992 West Virginia
Resolution and 1984 Resolution on Marriage as “official” ABC policy,
partly because he ignores the June 1993 Resolution acknowledging the
“variety of understandings within the denomination and partly
because claiming anything as binding ABC policy smacks of heresy
against our principle of local autonomy based on the “movings of the
Holy Spirit”! My heart aches for all of us who are now excluded from
full and free participation in the Call of God and Commissioning to
ministry (lay and ordained) in the name of Jesus Christ. I feel
incredible pain on behalf of my brothers and sisters within the LGBT
community for whom Medley has judged the living of their lives as
humans to be in a category equated with sexual abuse and sin. My
only consolation, as I ponder the impact of this letter and Dr.
Medley’s statement that ensures division within the denomination and
further divides the universal church of Jesus Christ, is the caution
and assurance, “Pride goeth…before a fall.”
Upon discussion of Medley’s letter, the Coordinating Council has
urged the drafting of a response. If anyone is interested in
helping with this drafting, please see me or Nancy Horan. This
response will be presented to the congregation at our October 15th
Congregational Quarterly Meeting. If the congregation chooses to
endorse this letter to represent Emmanuel Baptist by vote, then it
will be sent as such, otherwise it will be offered for individual
signature endorsement. There are few times when I believe we are
called to respond as a congregation, recognizing that we are diverse
and our differences are respected and valued. However, we have
affirmed our affiliation with the Association of Welcoming and
Affirming Baptists, which states that we exclude no one from full
participation in the life and ministry of our church. Therefore I
believe, now is the time for us to be of one voice in this
proclamation against the evils of prejudice and discrimination.
Peace,
Pastor Ellen Tatreau
Some Thoughts on Marriage and Domestic
Partnership
Comment by
Chris Boisvert
I
recently participated in a rather
unorthodox wedding. The wedding was in
Las Vegas and had a Star Trek theme.
Everyone in the wedding party wore a
Star Trek Star Fleet uniform. There were
cast members dressed as Klingon, Ferengi
and Andorian characters. The minister
even wore a uniform. The fun nature of
the wedding wasn't meant to detract from
the serious nature of marriage or the
commitment of the two people who were
taking the steps to share their lives.
There will be a church wedding in the
Philippines in December, but U.S. law
requires a civil marriage on American
soil for it to be legal since the bride
is not a U.S. citizen. It was decided by
the couple that this would be a fun and
exciting way to deal with the civil
requirement.
Many nations
make the distinction between the civil marriage of two people and
the religions ceremony of a wedding. Yet in the United States where
we talk of the separation of church and state, the two are linked in
the mind of many people. I wholeheartedly support same sex marriage,
yet I do not believe that religious bodies should or ever would be
required by the state to perform such ceremonies. Yet, if we truly
believed in the separation of church and state in this country, we
should be able to better see that the legal and religious aspects of
what bonds two people together are separate.
California recently enacted the a change to the tax law that allows
same sex domestic partners within the state to have equal tax
benefits to married heterosexual couples. In California, same sex
couples wishing to marry still not do so. That distinction goes to
Massachusetts alone. Yet, like Vermont, another California has moved
to the cusp with the latest additions to the rights extended to
domestic partners. I believe that the focus should be on rights of
equality at this time, rather than need to for those rights to be
wrapped up in a bundle called marriage. I feel that more can be
accomplished this way than to insist that the only way we can be
equal is with the label "marriage."
