Tale of two courts

Two of Worldwide Pablo's worlds collided today. [Well, perhaps converged is the right word.]

In the nation's capital, the president demonstrated his "divider not a uniter" bona fides by nominating a certifiable wingjob to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, the Arizona cowgirl who will be forever esteemed for providing an essential "middle ground" during her long tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court. [And who needs more proof of that than this hopeless whack job?] The religious idealogues who animate to the president's political power, of course, will have nothing to do with something as tawdry and impractical as a farookin' middle ground. [Think, Harriet Miers.] In fact, today's nomination proves out the fears of those of us in the middle that the president's blinkered, social-conservative base will settle for nothing less than utter hegemony when it comes to public policy, regardless of its less than impressive margins of power in each of the branches of government, or its increasingly tenuous sway in the political opinion polls. [Especially, these days.]

There's a similar passion play going on over in the United Methodist Church, WWP's chosen brand for the last 50 years, where the descendants of John Wesley have been engaged in a graceless slugfest over homosexuality for the last three decades. Today, the denomination's high court, the Judicial Council, ruled that a Germantown, Pa., minister should be defrocked because she is a lesbian. And moreover, it reinstated a Virginia pastor who had been suspended for denying a gay man membership in his congregation, even though an overwhelming majority of his clergy peers rejected his acts.

There's a sense that the religious right has been dwindling in United Methodism over the last few decades -- by the right's own admission. [Most of them are turning to unaffiliated "bible churches" that one finds oh so common these days. Yada,  yada. Good luck, and faretheewell.] But for those of us who remain in John Wesley's unanticipated 221-year-old American experiment of "proclaiming grace and freedom," we don't have to look very far to find the righteous remnant chortling, practically unconstrained in its glee, over today's slam dunk for marginalizing gays and lesbians from their church.

Question: If a pastor can reject a member for being gay, can a denomination erase its gay and lesbian membership? It's been done before, of course, and there's no law against it. But such an act in Methodism would be unprecedented, if only for the fact that it would be so ... well ... un-Wesleyan.

In fact, is it so hard to imagine -- our conservative friends' dismissive whimpers not withstanding -- that the day is soon upon us that the denomination that once championed its "open hearts, open minds, open doors" will, by choice, become a ghetto of narrow-minded, mostly Southern, and mostly white people? If you liked Savannah, Ga., in the 1730s, you'll love the new Methodist Church. John Wesley would recognize it, in fact, and we're pretty sure he's grieving at the prospect, even now.

So, what's the connection?

It's said that the United Methodist Church is nearly a perfect reflection of the United States. Which is to say, the denomination's membership is by and large arranged along the same dimensions and proportions as the U.S. Census: Both can be categorized as rural/urban or north/south or upper-class/lower-class or red-state/blue-state in pretty much the same terms. [Fact check: Where the UMC lacks, obviously, and for historical reasons, is racial equality. On any Sunday morning, the United Methodist Church, sadly, is one of America's whitest places.] Otherwise, Methodists are all over the place, and they're all over the map: This is a denomination, after all, that includes not only the Bushes, George and Laura, as well as the Cheneys ... but also Hillary Clinton. That gives you a basic grasp of the church's diversity [if one is still allowed to use such a term].

Like the United States, the United Methodist Church once was a place where pluralism was not a "godless diversion," but a value, where inclusion was the norm and a wide berth was given to opposing views.  In recent years, though, tolerance has given way to finger-pointing and witch hunts that can only be described as a jihad, a holy war to weed out unlike-minded folks. Increasingly, the case is made that only today's slightly majoritarian view is the right view, to hell with the rest of  you. If so, these folks are staking out more territory than they have earned; and in any case, and specifically for the United Methodists, they surely are convicted of the commonly accepted evil of condemning others of perceived and still debatable sins, rather than acknowledging their own proven sin of actually judging one another.

Interestingly, we have seen in recent years that those who have claimed ever smaller margins in their realms -- for example, W's supporters by 49 to 52 percent in past elections, now far less; and UMC conservatives by anywhere from 75 to 65 percent 30 years ago, to less than 55 percent or less in recent years -- are now staking a manifest destiny unrelated to their actual claim on the hearts of the people they purport to represent. [Interestingly, in both cases, there is evidence of "court-stuffing" during the final throes of a dying argument. But that's a post for another day.]

Disaffected Methodists at least have options. They can become Episcopalians, or Presybyterians, or more likely, Congregationalists. Or, those who would say John Wesley, or even Jesus Christ, thought gays and lesbians to be outside of God's grace ... well, they, of course, can become Baptists.

But, where, oh where, do gay Americans go when they're outlawed?

Comments

[gavin]

"it's said that the United Methodist Church is nearly a perfect reflection of the United States. Which is to say, the denomination's membership is by and large arranged along the same dimensions and proportions as the U.S. Census: Both can be categorized as rural/urban or north/south or upper-class/lower-class or red.."

i've never heard that before, but it's indicative as our varied camps ack more like government than a house of God

[Dalene]

If the religion of the extreme fundamentalist Christian Right succeeds in shaping government to reflect their ideology and "way of life", the band of outlaws will be many. In fact, the band of outlaws will include anyone not white, upper class, and male. The present and single minded focus of these extremists on gays and abortion is just the beginning of a larger purpose of imposing their religion beliefs as the law of the land, which everyone will not only be required to abide by, but will be punished for, if not adhered to in strict fashion.

As an outspoken uppity woman, I can hardly wait till it is okay to put me back in my place, enforce upon me the propriety of women best sitting down, shutting up, doing as they are told, and looking pretty -- by switch, whip or prison. It will only be a matter of time if they get their way.

These last 5 years, I have been stupified at what the majority of Americans have allowed to take place, even in the face of manufactured facts, manipulation and a fanatical ideology that should have enraged, and yes, frightened them, and obviously does not. That the majority of Americans are not saying 'enough is enough' to a small group conspiring to eliminate democracy as we, the larger group, know it; and to hold accountable those in power who abuse power, who do not even attempt to hide the narrow-minded agenda that motivates them, or deny the ties of obligation to this jihad of wingnuts, is baffling.