A lesbian couple invited to address the 2009 session of the Mississippi Annual Conference suggested that the United Methodist Church is wrong in refusing to affirm and celebrate homosexual relationships.
Renee Sappington and Connie Campbell;
in background, Bishop Hope Morgan Ward
One of the women, Dr. Connie Campbell, a faculty member at UM-affiliated Millsaps College, told the gathering, “We have no doubt that God embraces who we are and blesses our relationship.”
The United Methodist Church’s Book of Discipline states that the UMC “does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.” It further states that “sexual relations are affirmed only within the covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage” (¶161G).
The two women spoke at a June 12 worship service that was centered around the theme “that the loving touch of Jesus through believers and the church is healing,” according to a summary of the service posted on the Mississippi Conference web site.
“Carol and Ray McNulty, [an interracial] couple, and [homosexual] partners Renee Sappington and Tommie [sic] Campbell, all testified to the healing which comes through churches which open doors by following the example of Jesus, and surround persons with love,” the summary reported.
Don Wildmon on the cover of the Sept. 2007 AFA Journal
Retired Mississippi Conference clergyman Don Wildmon, an influential conservative activist and founder of the Tupelo-based American Family Association (AFA), thinks the testimony by Sappington and Campbell at an annual-conference worship service was out of bounds.
On June 16, Mr. Wildmon e-mailed an “open letter to Mississippi United Methodists” arguing that the testimony was aimed at promoting acceptance of same-sex marriage in the UMC.
“They presented their story and told how rejected they felt because their church would not accept their marriage. Their clear intent was to promote homosexual marriage in the United Methodist Church,” Mr. Wildmon wrote.
Here is a shortened version of Ms. Sappington and Dr. Campbell’s remarks (full video posted below):
Renee Sappington: My name is Renee Sappington, and this is my partner Connie Campbell…. [B]ased on the love and support that we experienced growing up, it was easy to know that God loved us unconditionally.
Even so, when we realized we were gay, we each really struggled with it, and we wondered if this was something we needed to give up for God….
Connie Campbell: And it was years later, actually in church, that we met…. We were really in the same place, both of us having come to the point where we realized that being true to God meant being true to ourselves. We didn’t date long at all before I knew that this was the person for me….
Over the course of a year, we knew we wanted to spend our lives together. So, we wrote our vows and we went to the church. But since the denomination of which we were members does not condone same-sex unions, we did not go in….
[O]utside the doors of our church, but no less in the presence of God, Renee and I vowed to love, honor and cherish each other till death we do part.
Renee Sappington: And, that was 11 years ago…. Around four years ago, we started attending a small study group at Parkway Hills United Methodist Church. We started going to Sunday School and the worship service — and soon realized that we had found what we were looking for.
We joined the church and felt very welcomed…. Our Sunday school class truly treats us as a married couple….
But even as we found so many open doors — and we celebrate them — we are painfully aware that some doors remain closed…. We realize that at some churches in this very denomination we would be denied membership.
And we also know that were we to say our vows today, we would also be standing outside closed doors.
Connie Campbell: ….We are in the church not because of how the church addresses homosexuality but rather in spite of it….
We have no doubt that God embraces who we are and blesses our relationship, that God’s doors are open even when the church’s doors sometimes aren’t. We also know that many others are not so fortunate…. That they are hurting, angry or confused, not realizing that the church just doesn’t always speak for God….
We, on the other hand, choose to hope, believing this church that we are a part of — a church whose faith is founded in the life and death of Jesus, in His teachings and His promises — this church will find the courage to follow His radical example: opening new doors and always showing God’s love to all.
excerpt is in response to the previous speakers.)
∞
The Rev. Buddy Smith, associate pastor the Mississippi Conference’s Tremont Charge (and executive assistant to Don Wildmon at AFA), thinks giving the lesbian couple a platform from which to argue for acceptance of homosexual relationships was clearly inappropriate — not only because embracing homosexuality runs counter to historic Christian teaching, but also because the congregation included children and youth.
“These testimonies [were] an assault on biblical truth about human sexuality and a shameless promotion of homosexual ‘marriage,’” Mr. Smith wrote in a June 20 posting on his blog. “There were young people present when [Ms. Sappington and Dr. Campbell] were given a platform to promote a lifestyle that the Bible clearly condemns as sinful behavior.”
In answer to critics Bishop Hope Morgan Ward, episcopal leader of the Mississippi Conference, insists that the couple’s testimony was not a challenge to official church teaching.
“The witness was not a challenge to the law of the church in any way,” she said in a report published in The (Jackson, Miss.) Clarion-Ledger. “It was an invitation for us to live faithfully and lovingly with all people with whom our lives are intertwined, … people who may be different from ourselves.”
In a “pastoral letter” issued in response to concerns, Bishop Ward said she is committed to upholding UM teaching. “As your bishop, I have been given responsibility to uphold the doctrine, discipline and polity of The United Methodist Church,” she wrote. “This is a responsibility I remember and embrace in this instance and in every instance.”
The bishop, in response to feedback about the appropriateness of the homosexual couple’s testimony, has “invite[d] clergy and lay members to a ‘dialogue’ on the issue sometime in early July,” the Clarion-Ledger reported.
∞
In addition to its declaration that homosexual practice is “incompatible with Christian teaching,” the United Methodist Church officially “support[s] laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman” (¶161B—Book of Discipline 2008).
That provision was added to the UM Book of Discipline in 2004 as the result of a 624-to-184 vote of the General Conference.
I applaud Bishop Ward for taking this courageous stand. One does not have to agree with everything a speaker or preacher might say to be blessed and challenged by it.
In fact, an Annual Conference gathering is a very appropriate setting for such a challenging and affirming message.
The Kingdom of God has boundaries to it. Certain lifestyles are out of bounds.
One would not want to drive on a six-lane Interstate highway without lane lines or boundaries. Spiritual life is no different. Boundaries keep us safe and secure in the Kingdom domain.
“To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life…” — Revelation 2:7
Our Bible talks a lot about overcoming. It is to the overcomers that the promises of new life are promised. In fact salvation is given so that man can, in fact, overcome. Jesus was afflicted — but overcame. Paul had a thorn in his side, but had to overcome. On and on. We would not be wrong, in answer to the question, “What is the Bible about?” to say that “It is about how God’s people overcome.”
Yet modernist, secular humanist theology which sets Scripture to the side as irrelevant does not even pretend to preach overcoming. The modernist message is one of acquiescence and defeat. Temptation difficult? Give in and “embrace.” Have an impulse? Wave the white towel.
All people face temptation. With the mapping of the genome, expect an onslaught — it has already begun — of articles and opinions genetically linking (and thus attempting to excuse) every malady known to man, from stealing to rage to gluttony to sloth.
There is certainly some inherited tendency — genetic/developmental/societal — toward lust and adultery: it must be overcome. The same is true for drinking. It must be overcome. For rage. Overcome. For materialism. Overcome. For deceit. Overcome. Gluttony. Overcome. Pessimism. Overcome.
And for homosexuality. Overcome. (Transforming Congregations routinely reports success deliverance rates in working with homosexual addictions that rival Alcoholics Anonymous.)
There is no crown and no prize in the modern theology of defeat. The result is a blind and stumbling humanity at the mercy of hell’s deceptions and whims.
When the bishops wonder why the laity feel disconnected and undervalued by the leadership of the church, hold this article up as Exhibit A.
One wonders why we have a Book of Discipline at all.
I think David got it right. We are getting dangerously close to worshiping sexuality, not recognizing that sexual expression is simply one manifestation of our being, not the sum total of it.
Wow. I am just stunned. Simply sharing a personal story about how sexuality legislation in the UMC affect the lives of actual church members is out of bounds? It is so terrible that it creates a controversy resulting in accusations on blogs and in magazines?
I thought the last General Conference included a call to the general church to engage in dialogue about homosexuality. How can that happen if people are censured or condemned in telling their stories?
Rick, I see disagreement here but not condemnation. These women have the right to live their lives as they so choose. This is America.
What I don’t understand is why they or anyone else would join a church or any other organization with the intention of changing the basic structure and teachings of that organization. That strikes me as disingenuous. Why not join a group more in line with your philosophy or ideals?
What I further do not understand is why a worship service, as opposed to some type of forum or workshop, was the venue chosen to give these women a platform. This strikes me as something the modern Left constantly raves against: proselytizing.
Maybe 5% of the population is homosexual, yet in many churches that issue is overshadowing other work of the church. This issue is taking up a hugely disproportional amount of time and energy.
I don’t mean to say there’s a direct moral equivalency between homosexuality and pedophilia, but many pedophiles feel just as driven in their sexuality as do homosexuals. Would it be appropriate to give a pedophile a forum such as this to tell his or her story? That may seem like a ludicrous question, but don’t forget the same question about homosexuality would have been considered ludicrous 30 years ago.
Pastor: We’re so glad you’ve decided to join the This United Methodist Church.
Me: Thank you, pastor. But I am going to be up front — I steal. I love to steal, and steal all the time. I just have an urge to steal.
I heard somewhere that a rumored article was reviewed by some professors somewhere for possible publishing in a medical journal that a genetic link for stealing, excuse me, I mean “cleptomania,” has been found. So it’s not a sin. It’s part of me and should be embraced.
I’m not sorry about stealing. I’ll steal after I join this church. In fact — I’m going to steal from this church.
Pastor: Consider yourself embraced. Remember we have “open minds.” Here, accept the right hand of fellowship.
Me: Thank you, pastor.
Pastor: Where’s my watch?
Wow, the apples and oranges arguments offered as intelligent arguments against the talks of the two lesbians at the Mississippi Annual Conference are incredibly those of persons who have little experience in rational dialogue.
The assumption of Mark that the two women joined the church to basically “change the structure and teachings of that organization” has little substance in fact. Did they say this was their reason for joining? Did they say this publicly? Or is this Mark’s way of dismissing them as credible Christians?
Mark may have feelings about the women which he is welcome to hold, but should not put out he own feelings as fact unless he can support his assertions. And it leads me to wonder why he is a member of the church. Furthermore, he lifts up the disproportional amount of time given to the issue of homosexuality in the church. Is it possible a disproportional amount of time is as much the fault of those who oppose the possibility that homosexuals may just be as worthy of membership as he is?
Dan’s dialogue between he and his pastor says more about his inability to think straight than it does of the fictional (I assume) pastor. Equating stealing with sexual orientation is the argument of those who have no sensible argument to give and so they come up with these non-related issues.
This is true of Mark’s rather sneaky way of slipping in the pedophilia argument with homosexuality. Come on, Mark, why even mention pedophilia and homosexuality if you do not secretly feel they ARE morally equivalent to each other? I suspect that persons of this ilk have equally nonsensical arguments for ignoring those holiness laws which they do not like.
The reason Wildmon, Good News (thanks, Mr. Heidinger), and many folks in the pew decry the presentation at an Annual Conference session (worship or otherwise) is because they know there is LITTLE OR NO forum in most churches (and Annual Conferences) where dialogue may occur. Since they believe that this is a subject on which there should not be disagreement with their position, they would stifle the dialogue of those of us who believe it is appropriate.
EDITOR’S NOTE regarding dialogue in the United Methodist Church on the matter of homosexuality:
The following is from a 2006 United Methodist News Service report —
In addition, in 2006, United Methodist Communications released a DVD-based study, titled “Can We Talk?,” aimed at fostering dialogue on homosexuality (video clip here.)
Earlier, the 1988 General Conference established the Committee to Study Homosexuality. That committee held a series of dialogues and authored a report submitted to 1992 to the General Conference.
Additionally, the matter of whether of whether sexual activity between two people of the same sex falls inside or outside of the Bible’s moral teachings has been a matter of debate at every General Conference since 1972, as well as at various annual conference sessions and jurisdictional conference gatherings.
This Google timeline shows archived stories related to UM dialogue on homosexuality since 1980. (NOTE: All of the stories listed in the Google timeline reference homosexuality but due to the nature of search engine functionality, some stories refer to dialogues on topics other than homosexuality.)
The link between stealing with a person’s choice to enter into a homosexual relationship is simple — both are prohibited in the lives of Christians, and in the Church, by Scripture. There will always be human weakness, but we are talking here about a public and unrepentent denunciation of biblical standard.
As for dialogue, the UMC is the “Incredible Shrinking Church” not because of a lack of dialogue, but due to an overdose of same in matters related to clear scriptural boundaries. Such guides for faith and practice are set down not to be endlessly debated, but to free the Church to be concerned with reaching the world instead of stumbling along in perpetual doubt.
Thomas Martin wrote: “I suspect that persons OF THIS ILK have equally nonsensical arguments for ignoring those holiness laws which they do not like.”
Sorry, Thomas, but I think this shows you are as judgmental as anyone you are ranting against. I didn’t state that these women joined the church with the PRIMARY intention of changing basic church teachings about sexuality, but that is clearly part of their agenda or else they wouldn’t have taken the opportunity to give their point of view.
Do you folks on the Left ever tire of using ignorance and prejudice to fight what you perceive to be ignorance and prejudice?
If the statement below (below the broken line) isn’t a challenge to church teaching, then there is simply no thing. The brazen disingenuousness being displayed by Bishop Hope Morgan Ward, who has still not apologized to the Mississippi Conference, in this thing is frankly astonishing.
Bishop Ward states that the “witness [of the two lesbian speakers] was not a challenge to church law in any way.” What honest thinking person does not read the statement below as a challenge to church law? The refutation of the bishop’s premise is the text of the witness itself. Pragmatically, Bishop Ward should resign.
(A sidenote: I would add “resurrection” to “the life and death of Jesus” in the statement below.)
————————————————————–
Connie Campbell: …We are in the church not because of how the church addresses homosexuality but rather in spite of it….
We have no doubt that God embraces who we are and blesses our relationship, that God’s doors are open even when the church’s doors sometimes aren’t. We also know that many others are not so fortunate…. That they are hurting, angry or confused, not realizing that the church just doesn’t always speak for God….
We, on the other hand, choose to hope, believing this church that we are a part of — a church whose faith is founded in the life and death of Jesus, in His teachings and His promises — this church will find the courage to follow His radical example: opening new doors and always showing God’s love to all.
The so-called “educated” among us try to make us believe that the choice of homosexuality is no more abhorrent to the church than choosing a pair of socks. In reality, homosexual activity is a sin. It is a sin against nature and of God. It goes against the foundational principles of the union of man and wife and while condoning a narcissistic attitude that is antithetical to the altruistic life of a true Christian.
The analogy of the thief to the homosexual is not only a good one, it is poignant. Should the church allow a drunk to lament on why he/she is misunderstood by Christians? How about a child molester? I’m sure the National Man/Boy Love Association would love to have an elderly man and his young boy lover give testimony to the Christian church. That would be wrong, however, because testimony should be about overcoming sin, not accepting it.
The Methodists should adhere to their Book of Discipline, not a marketer’s slogan. While Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors sounds good, in reality our minds should be guided by the Bible and by our Discipline. An “open” mind will soon disassociate itself from both.
I was outraged about this when I heard about it this summer and tried to take steps in teaching our bishop (here in Mississippi) God’s word on this subject.
I put it on the back burner until I was studying Genesis this week for class of 3-year-olds. You see, I had to explain to them about how God created Adam and Eve — and why he created them! To get on there level of understanding, I told them they were created as Mommy and Daddy are!
I could not e-mail or speak to the bishop after watching the video. I finally got the courage up to speak to my preacher. He claimed the bishop did not know this was going to take place.
Okay, fine! But are we going to be conformed to the world and disobey God’s word? NOT ME! I love the Bible and bearing witness! The church I belong to is the church my husband grew-up in (I grew-up Baptist). A Bible-based church is where we belong!
Pray for me. I’m thinking about changing churches. But I love working in the church!
God bless!
A true leader, when faced with a divisive and startling occurrence such as this, does not hide behind a letter signed by those reporting to him/her. What do you think the direct reports would do? Would they not sign? You’ve gotta be kidding me.
A true leader would have displayed good judgment, stepped up to the plate, and would have immediately said the following to the Conference: “I accept full responsibility for the appearance of these two people. I apologize for it happening, and it will not happen again on my watch.”
Sadly, this did not occur.
If in fact, the bishop was unaware of the content of the program, then at a later date he/she could take appropriate measures with those who were responsible for its content. The bishop is the CEO and regardless of who makes a mess of something, he/she (the bishop) is ultimately responsible.