I am aware that this is an AME church discussion board, but I wanted to mention something that I noticed on one of the United Church of Christ district websites. I often peruse the websites of other denominations, and I noticed that certain United Church of Christ congregations have adopted an "Open and Affirming" church orientation. The website (http://www.cmaucc.org/ona.html) states "...To say that a setting of the UCC (a local church, campus ministry etc.) is "Open and Affirming" means that it has publicly declared that "gay, lesbian, bisexual" (GLB) people (or those of all "sexual orientations") are welcome in its full life and ministry (e.g. membership, leadership, employment etc.) It bespeaks a spirit of hospitality and a willingness to live out that welcome in meaningful ways. In 1985 when the Fifteenth General Synod (national delegate body of the UCC) adopted the resolution, "Calling on United Church of Christ Congregations to Declare Themselves Open and Affirming." This General Synod action "...encourages a policy of non-discrimination in employment, volunteer service and membership policies with regard to sexual orientation; encourages associations, Conferences and all related organizations to adopt a similar policy; and encourages the congregations of the United Church of Christ to adopt a non-discrimination policy and a Covenant of Openness and Affirmation of persons of lesbian, gay and bisexual orientation within the community of faith." Not all UCC churches label themselves as "Open and Affirming". I am aware of the AME Council of Bishops position on Homosexuality/ordaining clergy, etc., in the AME church. In this new millennium, do you think the AME Church will ever move in in a similar direction as that of the UCC or is this totally out of the question? God bless.

-- Anonymous, November 18, 2003

Answers

Augusta opines -

"In this new millennium, do you think the AME Church will ever move in a similar direction as that of the UCC or is this totally out of the question?"

Well AJ considering a lot can happen over the course of 1,000 years I suppose the likelihood of the AME Church accepting gay/lesbian unions, marriages and open homosexuality is possible. The only way I see this happening is our current theology of sex and sexuality must be repudiated as sacred dogma. Personally, I am diametrically oppossed to gay marriage because such "unions" trivialize the importance of anatomical diversity between men and women. I am unabashedly and unapologetic about being a heterosexual male. Opposites attract, similarities repel. I have tried to understand and be open minded about gay marriage but such intellectual pursuits have only resulted in more headaches than I care to have right now. It seems like there is more tolerance for sexual abberations in churches than say my local barber shop. I'm sure you don't want to hear what my barber and other black patrons have to say about women, men and the future of procreation :-) QED

-- Anonymous, November 18, 2003

I suppose anythings possible in this day in age. Like Bill, I am unapologetically female through and through and consider relationships between men and women to be a wonderful and exciting thing. I too am trying to be open minded about same-sex relationships but I just don't believe it to be in line with God's purposes for creation and it does not represent the Holy people God desires us to be. I don't know how Gay people can represent the word of God without really getting to the core of hurt and pain that engulfs many in our churches who sit in denial including the clergy. If they are not confronting their own reasons for rejecting God's natural union, how can they bring healing to others in our churches who are dealing with stuff that often is not talked about like sexual molestation, abortion, rape, and abuse.

If they stay on the surface it's probably ok but I feel that God desires more from us than to sit in church complacently and have the Pastor repeatedly Sunday after Sunday give us permission to stay in our stuff all while modeling it themselves. I pray that the real issues that gay people have are dealt with the grace of God and not covered as if nothing is wrong.

I love men and I think men are beautiful. Another woman can't offer me nothing but a conversation!

-- Anonymous, November 18, 2003

The problem with gay and lesbian unions is this: God is a creator and made us creative as well. "Be fruitful and multiply" is a biological impossibility with same gender sex and the process of creation is broken by it.

While there are no big sins or little sins in the sight of God and the church must be tolerant and opened to all, The official stance of the church must always be "What thus saith the Lord."

-- Anonymous, November 18, 2003

This gay rights thing is really getting big. This is an article in Wednesdays edition of the SF Chronicle (Yes San Francisco!) Here's the link if anyone is interested in reading this man's take on homosexuality and the bible:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi? file=/g/a/2003/11/19/notes111903.DTL

-- Anonymous, November 19, 2003

Loving Life opines -

"I love men and I think men are beautiful. Another woman can't offer me nothing but a conversation!"

This might come off a tad bit self-serving but all I have to say is AMEN??!!! I would like to nominate you as the next Men's Day Speaker at church. You last sentence reminded me of a line from Aretha Franklin's classic song, "Dr. Feelgood", where the Queen of Soul declares that her girl friends company is no match for the brother who meets her innermost needs and doesn't provide "pills for her ills". Makes you wanna holla and...........I sure hope Parson Harper allow me some degree of editorial latitude with that tribute to Ms. Franklin :-) QED

-- Anonymous, November 19, 2003

Don't expect the AME Church to label itself as "open and affirming" within this century! This subject has been discussed before in earlier threads. Oh by the way, Prof. Bill...Gladys Knight says it all when she croons "...if I were your woman, and you were my man...!" Have Mercy Sistah Gladys!!!

-- Anonymous, November 19, 2003

here is an interesting article regarding the UMC and whether they will actually bend on this issue in the near future:

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1231718.html

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2003

Parson Ray -

Now don't forget the most important lyric where she promised to "never, never stop loving _________ (fill in the blank). Only the promise of Eternal Life and Jesus' 2nd Coming rank higher. Did you know that phat Georgia Peach (Ms. Knight) was directing those sultry lyrics at a poor but promising and "prospective" young economist? Now who might that be, pray tell :-)? QED

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2003

I would like to believe that the AME Church will not allow itself to be "open and affiming" today, tomorrow or a thousand years from now. It is unfortunate how the sexual orientation issue has divided families, communities and denomonations. The "Open and Affirming" ideology in the Church does not build bridges. It creates more strife in its attempt to create tolerance.

As for all of these examples of songs to celebrate the appreciation of the relationships between men and women, I think I am going to throw a more youthful (*wink*) example out there. Can we say India Arie, Lalah Hathaway or Jill Scott? Now these are some sistas who appreciate positive relationships between men and women! They are women after my own heart.

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2003

Sistah Terry...let us not forget that "Chocolate Diva" Sistah Angie Stone!

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2003

Bro Allen: Ah yes, how could I forget Angie Stone (especially since I am often found humming her latest hit "More than a Woman")? She is a diva in her own right. I also thought about Amel Laurieux. She too is a positive sista who is positive about men and women. It's always wonderful to hear people sing about the positive aspects of male and female relationships. It's far more refreshing than the alternative. : )

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2003

Where is my Anita Baker Rapture CD? I know its almost 20 years old but the message remains the same :-) QED

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2003

Thank you very much for your responses. Thank you so much, also, for those of you that reminded me that this subject was covered in earlier posts. I bought up the subject for those folks who are new to this board and who do not know how to locate archived posts. Also, in light of the "same sex marriage" legislation that is currently being passed in the State of Massachusetts, I felt it is an issue that we need to continue to grapple with. It is good to see that there are so many "opposite gender loving" people out there like myself, in AME land. God bless you all.

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2003

There is room for all at the table. The power and presence of God is not limited by man's lack and limitations. The church is not a private country club where we can pick and choose members. When Jesus was asked the question..... How do we really know that we are your disciple......His answer was....That you have love one for another. Churches developed legalism and dogma of non-acception. This website is great. Thanks for the dicussion. Greetings from Bethel AME in Portland, Oregon a church that welcomes all.

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2003

Brother James writes "There is room for all at the table"...When I read this posting, I cannot help but think "What would Jesus do AND say"? I totally agree with everything you have stated, my brother. As others have so enthusiastically proclaimed their heterosexuality, I do so as well. However, however I am proud to say that I am "Open and Affirming" AND I am African Methodist Episcopal. I would take the radical stance and say that if Christ were living and walking on earth today, he would be "Open and Affirming" of ALL people, regardless of their sexual preference. The scripture shows that Christ always stood up for those that would have been considered the "underdog". Peace and blessings.

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2003

AJ & James -

The historical evidence confirms that Jesus' theological message emphasized "openess" (i.e. "Come unto Me all who Labor and are weary laden and I will give you rest") but after receiving rest or salvation the believer is expected to conduct himself or herself in a manner which is representative of being considered God-fearing men and women. The Bible contains unambiguous language and sanctions against homosexuality. The Holy Writ declares that neither gays, liars, adulterers or heterosexual whores will inherent Eternal Life. If the Church of Christ (forget this PC idea about a Church of Allen) accepts and affirms gay lifestyles what would preclude our congregations from "affirming" adulterers, pedophiles, bestiality and drug addicts as acceptable conduct? In each of those cases the actions can be construed as consensual with "no third-party being hurt". This is inconsistent with Biblical mandates. To pursue "openess" would clearly dilute any moral authority we profess to hold. I know it's a cliche but we must love the sinner but speak out against the sin. QED

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2003

Room at the Table! I am so glad the brother from Portland bought up the issue of the table. The table is not ours to pick and choose who comes or who is not welcome. The table was set by God for God's people. It is interesting that Jesus calls us to follow him. And one thing in following Jesus it really only leaves room for us to proclaim the gospel that others may follow. Yes there is room for the adulterer, the pedophile, the whore, the john, the rapist, the robber, the murderer, the arsonist, the welfare recipient, the gay, the straight and even for me. The call to pick up the cross and follow Jesus is open to any and everybody, and sometimes my tunnel visioned brothers and sisters we have to be ready to accept souls seeking salvation just as they are so that they might hear what thus saith the Lord and be transformed by the renewing of "their" to a mind of God that allows them to present their bodies as living sacrifices. When you decide to close the table of the Lord you are not serving God you are serving yourself. Believe that!

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2003

The great Chicago preacher, orator, singer Rev. Clay Evans once sang a gospel song called "There Is Room at the Cross for me". The theology of the song can be applied to this discussion about openness. While it is unmistakably true that ALL can come to the Table, it is also true that certain expectations are placed on the invitees AFTER they leave the table. In Paul's letter to the Church at Corinth he reminds us that we are Ambassadors of Christ. The title ambassador implies that I (we) should be representative of Him to those I (we) interact. My credentials as an ambassador would be rightly suspended if I conducted myself in a manner disrespectful of the person or institution I am representing. Recall, for those of us old enough to remember, Andy Young was "relieved" of his ambassadorial duties to the UN in the late 70s because it was felt by Prez Carter that he did not appropriately represent the US in his cozy relations with PLO leader Yasser Arafat. Young's replacement, also a black male, Donald McHenry, understood the mistake of his predecessor and as a result served with distinction and without controversy. Yes, by all means Come to the Table. However, if we believe that God has zero tolerance to sin, a change in one's personal behavior (gay or otherwise) remains a clear indication that one has submitted to the perfect Will of God. As Parson Harper has rightly commented before, Jesus not only forgave the woman caught in adultery He also instructed her to Go and Sin no more. You can't have openess on one hand and deny the significance of responsible behavior on the other. To do so trivializes the moral authority of our Zion. QED

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2003

AMEN & amen.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2003

My dear brother in Jesus Christ says:

"While it is unmistakably true that ALL can come to the Table, it is also true that certain expectations are placed on the invitees AFTER they leave the table."

I totally agree with Brother Dickens statement. And I am very supportive of opening the door and the table to all those people who may not know God in the pardoning of their sins. I believe in God's transforming power so much that I can welcome the gay the lesbian, the transgendered and the bisexual to the table. Because I believe once they experience the power of God in the presence of those who follow Christ they shall be changed. It's not my job and it's not my task to measure their fitness for the table. If it had been left up to my home church back in my day I would not have found God because of the situation surrounding my birth. My mother was not an acceptable woman because of her "mistake." She needed to be punished because she set a bad "example." Thanks be to God she met some followers of Christ, instead of church members, who invited her and her progeny to the table and welcomed them. They did not require her to be anybody other than who God made her and they (Because they believed in the power of God to transform and renew) allowed her to find God and to follow him for herself.

I think the analogy using Andy Young is shameful. Andrew Young believed that the PLO had rights too and so he took a stand. I really find it offensive that you would imply he did not serve with distinction, if anything he exemplified the freedom he had in Jesus Christ and in the United States when he stood for what he believed was right rather than on what was politically expedient.

In many ways this is what the progressive churches in our zion will have to do if we are to grow and be the church God has called us to be.

We ought to say Welcome ye Gay, ye Straight, ye bent, broken and crooked come to the table and let's learn from the master and feel his acceptance so that we might obey when he tells us to Go and sin no more.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2003

The Andrew Young analogy was perfect for the situation. Mr. Young could no longer be the spokesman for the President. An ambassodor doe s not speak for himself, but for the one he represents.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2003

Ahhh......nothing like returning to the office after a long and grueling morning of depositions and legal conferences concerning my economic workload and read where our resident iconoclast, Brother Harold, has ripped and rebuked my reference to former Ambassador Young (LOL). Then again, surviving Harold's rebukes provide me with the necessary energy to battle the lawyers :-) Of course Harold knows that I enjoy reading his sharp-edge comments even when I am the unfortunate recipient. I do hope the ex-UCC preacher, ex-Ambassador and ex-Mayor of Atlanta will be equally forgiving if I happen to bump into him in DC during the holidays. If I'm not mistaken Young's son- in-law is still pastoring a UCC church in NW DC, not far from where I used to live. Oh, btw, the most effective US Ambassador to the UN in recent years was Dr. Jeanne Kirkpatrick during the early-mid 80s. If Ross Perot hadn't interfered with the 2002 Presidential Elections, Dr. Kirkpatrick would have been the 1st aoman to serve as Secretary of State. QED

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2003

Just in case someone might think I'm slightly inebriated in my office, the prior post should have read 1992 instead of 2002 and woman instead of aoman :-) QED

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2003

Brother Bill:

You are an inspiration to me. Your grasp of our zion and the world is beyond is often astounding. I am so blessed to communicate with a man of your stature. And to top it off you even have as sense of humor. You challenge me to think critically and logically and then you have given the strength and the courage to put my thoughts into words. At thanksgiving I give thanks to God for you. Now for those people who think it is funny to blow up my mail box with gay hate mail let me tell you this: Many of you who have cursed me to hell with gay people will miss me but you will be there to greet your kindred. Finally and I have agonized over stating this I am NOT gay. I agonize because I have the sneaking feeling that if I was seed slinger (you will get that on the way home) nobody would rail against me. If simply being in support of opening the church to gays and welcoming them to table to meet Christ, garners hate mail, I cannot imagine what it would be like to live as a gay man with all these rock throwing, spear chucking Christians all around.

One last thing: To all of you who wrote me with bitter guile, I ask that the Lord will bless you and keep you this holiday season.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2003

Dear Brother Harold:

Thank you so much for your openness and your courage to respond to such a "hot potato" issue! Just to respond to the bitter emails you have received, I am sure you are aware that bitterness and gile is rooted in fear, which is the cause of much separation in the church and in the world today. Fear has several children, such as racism, sexism and homophobia. You have shown a mature Christian attitude to respond with kindness instead of hate, to the hatemail you have received. Keep up the good work and may God bless and keep you!

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2003

Dear, Sis Jackson

You pose a very interesting question regarding the UCC's policy on Open and Affirming Churches. The issue of human sexuality is a delicate matter especially in the Church. When the Aspostle Paul addressed the Corithian church he was addressing sexual behaviors that were out of balance with what he felt was God's will for a new uncertain religious sect. The early believers lived in a context where there were many practices that abused human sexuality i.e. male and female temple prostitution, incest, and pederasty. In these cases God given sexuality was distorted into treating people like objects rather than subjects. The homosexuality issue was addressing pederasty where an adult male would take advantage of a younger male with fair features. In a male dominated world the early Greeks considered themselves the epitome and center of creation. This attitude coupled with a pleasure principle mentality cheaped a gift God meant for celebration and enjoyment. That was then.

Fast forward to now, the issue of Open and Affirming Churches is vital to one's understanding of the Church. The UCC policy is progressive and attempts to affirm one's fundmental personhood and seek justice in areas where people are being persecuted because of their sexuality. The research about choice vs. being hard wired is on- going. I believe it is important to have open non-punitive dialogue that is homophobic free. I believe Jesus' commandment to love God with all our being and our neighbor as ourselves is the paradigm we should follow in all our sayings and doings, with a healthy dose of God's grace and mercy.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2003

By definition, if any church is a Jesus worshiping church, it is open to all persons seeking salvation. I know of no church that expels its members for being homosexual. Now, some churches have rules for membership that includes explusions for certian behaviors. For example, in the AME Church (Page 68, 2000 Discipline) a menber may be placed on the Left Without Certificate Roll for "being persistent negligent and continously absent, and has persistently refused to support the church". In addition, a Deacon or Elder who is absent from the Annual Conference for 2 years without lawful excuse may lose membership in the Conference, [Page 138, 2000 Discipline], which is the same as expulsion from the church. The rules for ministers in our discipline and our Council of Bishops have clearly indicated and shown by example that participating in a public homosexual relationship (openly gay) is grounds to deny ordination in the AME Church. I consider that all denominations have that right to make rules for both membership and clergy and to make differences in requirements for membership in the church and ordination.

BE blessed

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2003

You know, I grew up in the AME Church, and as long as I can remember there have always been gays in the church and they were always accepted. Most of the congregation; however, just believed they were going to hell if they did not change their ways.

I believe in the bible and the bible does not affirm homosexuality. I do not believe anyone should be restricted from the church because of their orientation since Jesus came for the sinner. I believe you just keep preaching Jesus. In the end, they, like everyone else, will be weighed in the balance. God will make the final decision.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2003

Andrew Young taking a stand was akin to respersenting a good conscience, a correct conviction and a moral voice to an issue that is only now being addressed by an Republican administration. An issue that Democrates initiated. Defending the saint hood of homosexuality is not. Hmmm, I wonder how the Republican party would had reacted if Oliver North was a moral voice for justice?

-- Anonymous, December 01, 2003

Ahhh, the play of politics and faith.

-- Anonymous, December 01, 2003

Who's defending the "sainthood of homosexuality"?

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2003