Tonight, as I was half-heartedly trying to do some reading for school and half-heartedly flipping through channels, I came across the first episode in a PBS series called Unnatural Causes…Is Inequality Making Us Sick? I didn’t catch the entire hour but there are three more episodes in the series and what I caught of the first one was very interesting. I thought it seemed loosely relevant to recent discussions here and wanted to point other YARs there. There’s a five minute trailer on the site so you can get a good sense of the series. No commentary and no questions from me right now, just a suggestion to check it out. There is also an independent site for the documentary here.Neurontin
Equifax free copy of credit report
Ringtones
Instant approval credit cards for people with bad credit
Buy Lexapro
Desyrel
Credit card application instant approval
Deltasone
Altace
Online home equity loans
Improve my credit score
Online auto insurance
Meridia
Buy Prednisone
Apply for a fleet low interest credit card application
Deltasone
Bank credit card application
Instant credit score
Instant approval no credit credit cards
Buy Evista
Credit report bureau
Atacand
Cheap Norvasc
My credit report for
Netgear VPN
Can i get a free credit report fico score
Automobile refinance
Cialis
Alprazolam
Tylenol
Virgin credit card application
Average national credit score
Online Prozac
Buy Naprosyn
Elysium Ringtones
Auto insurance
Ultram
Soma
Low cost payday loan
Instant approval business credit cards
Effexor
Three in one credit report
Correcting credit reports
Buy Famvir
Heartland credit card processing
Cheap Lamisil
Creditcard debt elimination
Scores credit card fraud
All 3 credit scores
Cheap Lisinopril
Instant credit card application
Automobile refinance
Annuity insurance
Student loan bankruptcy
How to increase credit score
Washington mutual credit card application
Credit report sample
Buy Lexapro
Credit score questions
Card credit debt pay
VPN tunneling
Tenormin
Instant approval no credit credit cards
Low interest credit cards with instant approval
Cheap Lasix
Buy Zithromax
Clean up your credit report
Cheap Cardura
Buy Arimidex
2004 card college credit debt mae nellie statistics student
Low interest fixed apr credit cards
Buy Levitra
3 credit reporting agencies
Dave Hollister Ringtones
Cheap Avandia
Cheap Valtrex
Instant approval credit cards

A little while ago, I got an email from Tim relating to the latest poll. He wanted to know if I had any thoughts to share on the issue of gender balance and women’s participation in particular on YAR. This has been discussed some before on YAR but it continues to be an issue. This is pretty much what I sent him, but he’s currently out of the country and I felt compelled to share it now.

As many of you know, I used to write more and now I don’t at all. This is largely due to being back in school and spending a lot less time in front of my computer and thinking about being young, anabaptist, or radical. If I really wanted to, I could make time to read YAR more than I do, even comment and contribute.

But I got tired. I got tired of the same stupid discussions over and over with basically the same person (actually different people, but it started to feel so familiar). I got tired of watching my friends and allies get tired and burned out (sometimes they just got quieter, sometimes they gave up and walked away in frustration), I got tired of having to defend my own existence and belief to straight white men who, as a friend of mine so aptly described it, “come on the blog for a while and do the virtual equivalent of beating their chests and yelling.”*

It isn’t even reassuring to know that eventually they’ll lose interest and leave because there seems to be a limitless supply of them out there in the interwebs just waiting their turn. I’ve seen this in so many virtual groups, listservs, blogs, etc. Why is it almost always men? What is wrong with these men and why don’t they just get over themselves? What inadequacies are they trying to compensate for with these behaviors?

As long as YAR is a safe place for certain straight white men to be gadflies who shit in everyones lemonade while hiding behind a veil of earnest piety and godtalk, it will never be a safe place for women, people of color, lgbt people, or even decent straight white men who just want to read and write and be a respectful, privilege aware, part of this blog. Women, people of color, and lgbt people have more than enough bullshit and unsafe places to deal with in our real lives, work, family, and churches, we won’t spend much time and energy on virtual bullshit and unsafe places.

We have tried to ignore them, we have tried to challenge them, we have tried patience, love, and reason. Maybe we should try respecting ourselves and our community and block their lowdown ways from the conversation. If we don’t, we are effectively blocking everyone else from relevant conversation and decent, life affirming community.

*PS to all you indignant straight white men out there who are just about to write a comment here. Yeah, you know who you are. You are the ones who refuse to check your privilege, or engage power dynamics. And you are the ones who whine about political correctness. “If you feel the burning desire to leap to your own defense and declare, “I’m not the problem!” then you just might be.” (two points if you actually read the piece that quote came out of)

I wrote this for the Brethren Mennonite Council blog but thought I’d cross-post it since it’s been quiet here for the last few days. If you need more context, you might check out the previous post on the BMC blog about the Human Rights Campaign/Logo Presidential Forum that j alan meyer mentioned here a while ago.

At this point, it seems somewhat likely that beginning January 21, 2009, a new Democratic administration of the United States will start working to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and beef up Hate Crimes laws. Glad to hear it. What isn’t clear yet is whether the discussion around same-sex marriage/civil unions will be about “what is achievable,” “states rights,” “a man’s journey,” or “the separation of Church and State” (all themes from the recent HRC/Logo forum). The Democratic front runners (the Republicans declined the invitation) want us to know that they are all for lgbt equality … as long is it doesn’t interfere with their chances of getting elected by including marriage equality. It is encouraging to hear that in the coming election, the most electable Democratic position is 90% gay friendly (not as good as 100% gay friendly but I’ll take what I can get for now). We’ve come a long way in the last few years but plenty of work remains.

I don’t have more to say about either Edwards or Richardson for now but I think Clinton should fire whoever came up with those states rights talking points. Didn’t we learn anything from the civil rights movement? States Rights is code language for “long, painful, tortured journey to someone else’s equality” now just as much as it was forty or fifty years ago. She should know better than that.

What I really want to address is Obama’s call for the separation of Church and State, which, for him, somehow means separate but equal (he, of all people, should know where that gets us). I first heard him go down this road during the CNN/YouTube debates. He didn’t seem to have a very good grasp of his own talking points and he ended up confusing even himself with his tortured explanation. He did quite a bit better in the HRC/Logo forum as he seemed to have prepped with his aides more and at least didn’t confuse himself. When he was done I said to myself “well…that’s almost a good idea.”

He seems to understand that separate and unequal is worse than separate but equal so he calls for “strong civil unions” instead of “weak civil unions.” He seems to understand that there is something wrong with the fact that our system mixes religion and the government when it comes to marriage but his proposal only partially fixes that problem. He calls for the separation of church and state so that churches can choose whether or not to discriminate (no change here but, eh, fair play to freedom of religion and speech) and creates a (hopefully) equal version for teh gays when it comes to civil rights. The problem is that his proposal doesn’t actually separate church and state for anyone except same-sex couples. If it’s actually equal, why do we need a separate name and system for it? …other than the fact Obama wants to be elected?

I have better proposal: actually separating Church and State when it comes to marriage/union rights. It seems to be in the interest of the government to reward people when they decide to join forces for economic and reproductive purposes. So, any couple (queer or non) should be able to go to their local Department of Civil Unions (DOCU), sign a contract in the presence of some witnesses and maybe a Justice of the Peace and they can receive their Civil Union License (CUL). The license would entitle them to a standard set of rights and responsibilities currently offered by the government under the category of marriage (which will be discontinued as far as the State is concerned). The Church could then do as it pleased in recognizing or not recognizing CULs.

The Church would be free and welcome to offer separate religious ceremonies to bless couples in their commitments to each other and decide which couples are worthy or not worthy of that religious blessing and recognition. The Church would not be part of issuing CULs. The Church could call these arrangements marriages, or unions, or whatever it pleased but they would not be civil unions. Any church could decide whether or not to recognize other church’s blessing ceremonies. Couples could even get a blessing in the church but not bother with a CUL if they felt like it, they just wouldn’t get the extra set of civil rights and responsibilities without it. That sounds more like the separation of Church and State to me and also appeals to my Anabaptistic sensibilities.

I’m afraid this didn’t come as a huge surprise to me but I definitely have a sick feeling in my stomach right now. This is a clip from 1994 of Dick Cheney. He even uses the term quagmire. It’s like he was looking into a crystal ball at the future…and then they did it anyway.

As it happens, I didn’t manage to keep writing throughout the week at San Jose. For that, I am sorry. I do want to share one little bit I found interesting during one of the presentations at the conference. One of the items that the delegate body voted on was a resolution (pdf) in support of bill in the US Congress to “acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the United States government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States.” Part of the presentation before this vote included some words from Steve Cheramie Risingsun, a Chitimacha Indian who leads Native Mennonite congregations in Louisiana and Alabama. You can read more about it at the Mennonite Weekly Review article.

The thing that I found particularly interesting about this was a comment made by Risingsun. He was talking about the various ways white colonizers mistreated Native Americans, tried to take away their culture, and were generally pretty nasty. He said that there was a phrase that was often used by these white folks: “Kill the Indian, Save the Man.”

I couldn’t help but notice how much this sounded like “Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin.” We look back now at these attitudes towards Native Americans and we are appalled. But in its time, this would have been seen as particularly enlightened and charitable by the Good Christians who practiced it. It was in contradiction to a harsher practice of the day, which was just plain “Kill the Indian.”

These Good Christian folk knew that it wasn’t nice to kill people but they thought that “practicing Indians” were sinners (I’m sure it said so somewhere in the Bible.) If they could just “love the Indian out of the Indian,” then he/she could become a Good Christian like them. “Loving the Indian out of the Indian” tended to include things like kidnapping children and imprisoning them in boarding schools where their hair was cut and they were told that their identity, culture, and family were intrinsically sinful. They were abused in so many ways, all in the name of saving them from their evil Indian ways.

Unfortunately, the attitude lives on (though the behaviors don’t tend to be physically violent much anymore). It lives on in the Mennonite Church, and the Church of the Brethren and so many other denominations and faiths. Of course, Good Christians are enlightened enough to know that it’s not nice to be outwardly homophobic, to use gay slurs, to beat up lgbt folks (or “homosexuals” as they seem to prefer to call us) but “everybody knows that ‘practicing homosexuals’ are sinners.” What Good Christians need to do is find a nice middle ground between beating up “homosexuals” and “embracing homosexuality.”

The problematic attitude is that there is something intrinsically wrong with being lgbt or q. Some say queer people are born that way, or choose to be that way, but really, it doesn’t matter because the attitude remains that there is something less-than or wrong about being gay. In the same way, the attitude used to be that there was something less-than or wrong about being (and “practicing”) Native American.

We look back at our history and see our acts of racism, classism, sexism, genocide, slavery, and abuse as related to ignorance about peoples’ identity. We all know that people of color don’t choose to be people of color and can’t change that, so therefore, white folks shouldn’t treat them badly because of it. This brings up the rhetorical question, “If they did choose or could change the color of their skin, would it be better for people of color to be white?” Of course not, we all know better and see value in racial diversity.

We try to forget that while we were oppressing Native Americans, African Americans, women, and everyone else we’ve oppressed (and in most cases continue to oppress in one way or another) we’ve blamed the victim for their own oppression by saying it was their behavior which warranted whatever abuse we were committing against them. This is happening to lgbtq people now. Whenever a Good Christian tries to find that comfy middle ground between being a violent homophobe and celebrating diversity of sexual orientation and gender identity, it happens.

How will we all (or maybe a generation or two down the road) feel about that in the future? Will lgbtq folks be getting resolutions of apology in the next decades? Centuries maybe?

One of the items discussed by delegates at the Mennonite Church USA churchwide assembly this month in San Jose was an resolution proposed by a group called Menno Neighbors. It is an informal group that meets once a year and they have a pretty active listserve. The resolution was changed to a statement for discussion by the resolutions committee of the executive board so there would not be a vote, just discussion. I was one of delegates that signed in support of this statement (didn’t get on the printed copy because I signed to too late).

The resolution is a call for conferences to stop disciplining congregations for differences in interpretation of the Confession of Faith from a Mennonite Perspective and was written largely in reference to a number of congregations that have been disciplined or expelled from their conferences for being publicly welcoming and affirming of LGBT members (most recently Hyattsville Mennonite in Maryland).

The discussion at San Jose consisted of statements from two conference ministers (one in favor, one against) and then some table discussion and some time for representatives from the tables to speak to the assembly open mic style. Lloyd Miller of the Central District Conference (CDC) spoken first, then Kurt Horst of Allegheny Mennonite Conference (AMC). CDC has become a sort of sanctuary conference for some congregations that have been disciplined by their home conferences and AMC recently disciplined one of its congregations.

Here are links to the original statement and the text of Lloyd and Kurt’s statements. I’m not going to include my own commentary for now but I thought it might make some interesting fodder for discussion, I’ll likely chime in in the next days or weeks. I find the different arguments very telling of the very different approaches and truths in the Mennonite Church right now.

Some questions I’d love to hear y’alls YAR thoughts on:

• Do you find anything especially compelling/troubling or valid/invalid in one or both of these arguments?
• How would you summarize both statements? (both quick and dirty first impressions and more thoughtful and maybe even more gracious synopses are welcome)

I’m writing from the Mennonite Church USA Churchwide Assembly in San Jose. I’ll try to keep some updates coming as I have time and content. I’m here more as a delegate from my congregation than as BMC staff but of course I still have similar concerns whether I’m wearing a BMC hat or just the Katie hat.The speaker at tonight’s adult worship session was Juan Martinez. I didn’t know of him before but you can read a bit about him here. As I listened to him speak, I was reminded once again that the church has a long way to go. The reason I say this isn’t because I disagreed with much of what he had to say, I felt he was right on as he spoke of the need for the church to deconstruct boundaries and break down walls. He spoke of the church needing to able to change and deal with diversity and I was there with him. I wish I took notes at these kind of things because then I would be able to give a better idea of his words to those gathered tonight. I’ll try to get my notebook out more the rest of the week so I can give better synopses.The thing that bothered me was that as he was talking about deconstruction and breaking down walls, and boundaries and such it was clear he was talking about language, race, and culture boundaries (maybe even gender, wish I had those notes that I didn’t take) and anything outside of that gets a little fuzzy. When I hear a good speaker talk about themes like this, I tend to apply the inspiring words to my own experience and think how well it all fits but, as far as I could tell, he wasn’t talking about some walls the church needs to deconstruct (or if he was, he wasn’t making that clear with his words). He wasn’t talking about the boundaries that push lgbt people out or tell them they are unworthy. He wasn’t talking about the walls for heterosexism, homophobia, and transphobia.

I’ve begun to notice that in so many church situations, people say as much with what is left out as they do with the actual words that come out of their mouths. If a church person (especially a leader) is talking about diversity or justice, I can’t assume they are saying anything about diversity and justice for the queer community unless they specifically say that. There is always a lot of talk about the church for all people and the unity of the church, but I know to always check for that asterisk and the footnote. It surely rings hollow when it doesn’t seem to be a full call for justice, or diversity, or unity.
“God’s Table, Y’all Come”*

“Live the Call, Vive la Llamada!”**

*some restrictions apply, offer only good for heterosexual Mennonites.

**not if your call is to be queer, out, and anapologetic about it. In that case, if you could just keep it hush hush, that would be just great.

I’ll be writing more later about the amazing BMC/SCN conference this weekend in San Francisco. It was inspiring and fulfilling. First Mennonite of San Francisco is truly a gift.

I saw this little gem in The Onion and thought it would make a great poll.

Study: 38 Percent of People Not Actually Entitled To Their Opinion

I’ve been thinking this for a while but now, thanks to The Onion, I know it is true… Just because you have an opinion doesn’t make it valid. I’m thinking 38% might be a little low though.

Well, this poll has been up long enough. It is time for a change. So, I’m posting the results for posterity and I’ll put up a new one when I’m done. The poll was up for about a month and a half and received 86 responses - here they are.

YAR or OAR? How old are you? (don’t worry, all are welcome, we’re just curious).

For some background on this poll and others, you might check here and here.

Eric, Tim, and I just realized that the three of us will be at the Mennonite Church USA Churchwide Convention in San Jose in July. We also figured that a few other contributors and readers might be as well. So, we want to have a little gathering with anyone that wants to show. We are leaning towards supper on Wednesday, July 4.

If you are going to be in San Jose for the MCUSA Convention, please leave a little comment here to tell us and we can work on plans for a gathering.
Also, you might consider coming to the Bay Area a few days early (if you haven’t already gotten tickets) to attend a weekend conference in San Francisco. It is being planned by Brethren Mennonite Council for LGBT Interests’ Supportive Communities Network in conjunction with First Mennonite Church of San Francisco and MennoNeighbors (a group that could fit the nickname OAR pretty well - don’t be offended Lin if you are reading this). For more information on the conference check out the BMC website.

I was watching CNN today as I was eating my lunch (black beans and saffron rice with piccadillo and spinach salad - awesome) and they were playing a rerun of an Anderson Cooper special on Christianity and faith. One portion of the show touched on recent findings that a person’s capacity for faith and spirituality may be genetically related. The story was based on the idea proposed by Dean Hamer in his book, The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired Into Our Genes. I haven’t read the book, and probably won’t but I did check out a couple reviews of it (Scientific American and Washington Post).

It turns out that Hamer’s science is a little dodgy as it is full of caveats and contradictions and has yet to stand up to the rigors of peer-review. Maybe he should have done a bit more work before publishing, but that’s not really my point. Whether or not Hamer’s work is grounded in what we like to think of as “reality,” it brings up some interesting questions for discussion. And since the blog has been spookily quiet for about two days, I thought I might stir the pot a little (I’m sure you’ve all realized by now that I enjoy stirring it up). If you are game, follow me down this rabbit hole and we’ll see where it comes out.

If it turns out that Hamer is on to something and our capacity for spirituality and faith or even religion is genetically related, what are the implications? Would there be a “wrong” genetic/faith make-up? What would that be? If someone had the “wrong” genetic tendencies, can they change? Should they? Would this affect whether or not religious belief is a choice? What are the implications if it is a choice? Or if it isn’t? Would one choice be socially sanctioned as good and right and receive special rights, benefits, or … privilege? Would another choice be seen as bad, dangerous, or fragmenting to human identity and be denied rights or seen as grounds for discrimination? If one’s religio-spiritual identity is not based on choice, but is rather genetically or in some other way predetermined, should that identity reflect how one is treated in society? What if we found that there was a complicated combination of genetics, environment, personal experience, and free will that fed into one’s religio-spiritual identity? Is it possible that one’s identity in and of itself is morally neutral but what is important is how it is lived? Would the group with the identity that is socially sanctioned get to determine amongst themselves the fate, rights, or even the “rightness” of the identity that is not socially sanctioned? Would it offend anyone if they did?

If you are confused as to where I’m going with this, you might take a look at some of the other work Dean Hamer has done to make a name for himself and how that might relate to all these questions. It might also be worth reading a few posts back to this and this. Don’t forget to check out comments as this is a discussion oriented blog, that’s where the “fun” stuff happens.

The US House of Representatives just passed hate crimes legislation that would extend hate crimes protections to be based on sexual orientation and gender identity in addition to current protections for race, religion, color, and national origin. It still has to go through the Senate and then face veto by you know who.

The thing that really blows me away is that people are actually against this, and that those people happen to call themselves Chrisitians. Now, if folks have a problem with the idea of hate crimes protections in general, eh, I would be happy to discuss that. But the idea that some groups of people should get protections while other groups (groups which happen to experience a disproportionate amount of hate crimes) should not is completely ridiculous. As it happens, the religious right is coming out en force against hate crimes protections for lgbt people. I linked this article about this in an earlier post.

It seems the argument has something to do with first amendment rights. They say that they want to be able to anything they want about the “homosexuals” in their churches without the fear of getting arrested. Well, this legislation will not impinge on that right. They will still be constitutionally able to spew whatever anti-gay speech they want (from their pulpits or in the street), as long as they aren’t committing a crime against an lgbt person or their property while they are saying it.

Maybe those who are against this legislation have a sense of how closely bias and violence are tied. First thing you know after lgbt people have hate crimes protections, society is going to start thinking anti-lgbt hate speech isn’t so hot either. Wouldn’t that be terrible. To think that we queers deserve rights and respect just like the rest of you. Definitely a slippery slope from punishing gay-bashing to gays thinking they can just walk around openly on the street then who knows what could happen (I’m sure it would be really bad though).

The term “the homosexual lifestyle” has appeared a number of times on this blog in the last few months. I continue to be perplexed every time I see it and hear it in the church or society. Along with all those other terms that are used against the lgbt community, it is a term that somehow carries enormous weight and meaning in our society despite the fact that it really should not be considered a valid term. My problem is that I don’t often hear this term (or other similar language) challenged for what it is – bigotry. I’d really love it if this ridiculous language would stop, both on the blog, and in church and society.

The Homosexual Lifestyle. The Homosexual Agenda. Against Family Values. Against God. Unnatural. I’m sure you can think of some yourself. Wasn’t the same of rhetoric used against other hated people in the past? Jews? Communists? Multiracial couples? Check out this comparison between the Anti-Semitic language and propaganda used by the Nazis and Anti-Gay language and propaganda seen today.

These phrases carry all the fear and stereotypes against lgbt people that no one can quite put into words. Maybe it is because everyone knows those fears and stereotypes don’t reflect reality but they all hold them anyway. Maybe it is because no one wants to admit to the freakish and sick fantasies that straights have of what lgbt people do. Instead, these vague euphemisms are used to insinuate everything that straights hate and fear but are afraid to say about gays. Even more, I wonder if these euphemisms are used to insinuate everything straights hate and fear about themselves but would rather foist on lgbt people? By existing, and being out, and demanding equality, and challenging traditional gender norms, and being unapologetically sexual, lgbt people fly in the face of convention and are somehow enormously threatening. I think it is because we are honest.

So, let me try to deconstruct this term just a little bit.

“The homosexual lifestyle” seems to insinuate dark things like promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, polygamy, gender roles, anal sex, oral sex, kinky sex, desire, immorality, disease, child molestation, perversion, fornication, pathology, subversive elements, and the commoditization of sex and sexuality. You could even throw in self-indulgence, control of the media, wealth and elitism, obsession with style, and butches or femmes if you wanted. I would ask if any or all of these exist as part of “the heterosexual lifestyle?” or maybe even the “the American lifestyle?” These stereotypes no more (and no less) represent the lgbt community than mainstream entertainment media represents the non-lgbt community. I’ll try to not judge you straight folk from what I see on primetime television (Desperate Housewives anyone?) if you try not to judge lgbt people from what you hear from your homophobic families or churches as well as the media.

Maybe I’m wrong and the “homosexual lifestyle” just means gays and lesbians loving eachother and living lives just like all the straights? Why would anyone have a problem with that? That doesn’t seem scary or mysterious enough to me to carry weight it does in society.

As far as the Homosexual Agenda – my only agenda is gaining equal rights in church and society and picking up bread on the way home from work today. So I ask you all to consider the language you hear used against the lgbt community and the language you use. Let’s frame the discussion in ways that are valid and useful without using stereotypes or the coded language of hate and bigotry. Most of what I’ve seen on YAR has been great, let’s take it even further.

In case you need an example of homophobia rearing its ugly head in langauge, propaganda, and politics: Putting The ‘Hate’ In Hate Crimes.

I have been meaning to work on this for a while and finally got inspired.

Some things to think about before you get yer posting and commenting on.

This blog is moderated to keep spam out but we’re not in the habit of deleting comments or blocking dissent. There are, however, certain behaviors that are rude and annoying and others that aren’t. The line isn’t always clear and we all cross it occasionally. If you feel someone has crossed a line or have questions, feel free to contact one of the moderators (Tim, Eric, or Katie). You are also welcome to politely challenge behaviors yourself, as you feel led.

If you are new to the blog and haven’t posted much or commented often on the blog, we might assume from rude and annoying behaviors that you are a rude and annoying person. We might request a change in behavior and if that fails, we might ask you to take your rude and annoying behaviors elsewhere.

• All are welcome but please be respectful of this community and what we are about. Read a few posts before you start writing to get an idea who we are.
• Read posts before you comment on them.
• When commenting - Engage what the author is actually saying, and stay on the topic of the post. Please don’t hijack threads. There is a difference between a discussion meandering about and someone sabotaging conversation. Don’t post generic form comments, we’re not interested in them and they aren’t relevant.
• Personal attacks, trolling and flaming are mean.
• On name-calling: A. Jesus said not to do it: “But anyone who says ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” Matt 5:22. B. He also did it himself: “You fools!” Luke 11:40, “You blind fools!” Mat 23:17, “How foolish you are” Luke 24:25. You figure it out.
• The more you disagree with a post or dominant opinions of the blog the more you should back up your argument. Link to relevant information, cite your sources and convince us with your argument. Don’t just spew forth with propaganda, lectures, red herrings, and similar rantings and ravings about your wonderful opinion. Make a point, and make it relevant. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
• Please make an attempt on spelling and grammar. Simple things like decent grammar, syntax, punctuation, and spelling make a happier blog environment for all of us.
• Strive for excellence, we offer abundant grace.

Our poll on white, non-gay men in ministry is now closed. In the month it was up, we received 30 votes of which 5 were abstentions. So of 25 votes, there were 15 yes votes. That is a encouraging 60%. Unfortunately, it is also two votes short of the 2/3 super-majority needed so I guess it’s too bad for you white, non-gay, males out there.

If you could all send your ordination papers back to where you got them, we would be much abliged. Feel free to keep your papers for licensing but you will no longer be able to be primary pastors without special permission. White non-gay men will still be allowed to serve on church planting teams, pastoral teams, or other specific ministries. The official YAR statement is below*.

“Within [YAR], there are a variety of beliefs and practices regarding roles of men and women in ministry, pastoral leadership [and blogging]. Contrary to the either/or clarity that some persons wished to bring to this discussion, the practice of [YAR] is more accurately described as a continuum in which [white, non-gay men] are involved to lesser or greater degrees in congregations. Through the process of spiritual discernment it was clear that equally sincere and faithful people understand Scripture differently and come to differing conclusions regarding the practice of [white, non-gay men] in leadership and ordination.”

Really, this hurts us more than it hurts you.

In other news, mfalme’s post has promted me to make a new poll. We just want to know. We won’t kick you off if you answer wrong.

*actually, this isn’t the official YAR statement. We have no official statement or official statementers at this time. I just copied part of what someone in Lancaster Mennonite Conference had to say about their vote and did a bit of editing.

I was just reminded of the significance of the fact that yesterday was April 4. If you go back in history a few decades - you’ll remember that April 4, 1968 was the day MLK Jr. was assassinated. But right now, I’m more interested in what happened one year before that on April 4, 1967 (40th anniversary was yesterday). King gave one of his more famous speeches at Riverside Church, titled Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break the Silence.

I’ll spare you a reflection or commentary of that here but I just want to make note of this anniversary and suggest that you all take a little time to read it (pdf)* or listen to it (quicktime).* It’s pretty long so you might have to take more than a “little” time. I must have been out of the loop yesterday because I didn’t hear or read anything about it in the media. I usually catch things like this.

I must say though, that it’s not a very big mental jump to replace a few words and King could be speaking to us today. Forty years later, the message is as relevant as when he made it.

*if you don’t want to download the pdf, it’s also here and audio can also be heard here (realmedia) and here (mp3).

As someone who raised a bit of a stink about the whole Lancaster Mennonite Conference-vote-to-not-ordain-women thing, I want to direct your attention to some good news. There was also a letter from the bishops recently to people in the conferece that I would also call hopeful.

So, to the Mennonite Church USA Executive Board, I want to say “Thank you.” I must confess, I wasn’t sure you had it in you, but with a little time for pondering and for the dust to settle, I see hope, strength, and wisdom in this resolution. I guess I had too little faith. Well done, the church will be better for it. I’m curious to see how this will play out.

To the bishops - you are asking some good questions and bringing up some important issues and I’m also curious to see where this will go.

I thought I would share this little image that I can’t get out of my head. I don’t think there’s a point here, I just find it frightening. It’s my image for how things are going in the current administration.

The United States is a big car hurtling down a busy highway at about 150 mph. It is swerving a lot and hitting things but keeps barreling on. Bush is at the wheel and his buddies are in the front seat. They’re all drunk teenagers and they’re having a big party up there. The rest of the country is in the backseat. Some in the back are sleeping peacefully and some are holding on with white knuckles and have that freaked out look on their faces. They’re freaked out because they know there is a really big wall just a mile or two up the road and we’re all going to crash and burn. They also have a sneaking feeling that after all the crashing and burning. Bush and his buddies are going to get up, brush themselves off and stumble away - unscathed.

Anyway, that is my image. I’d really like to get out of the car. Anyone else?

I’ve spent the last year and a half doing voluntary service with Brethren Mennonite Council for LGBT Interests (BMC). At the end of my term (August), I’m moving on to other things and BMC is looking for another volunteer. If you are a person (or know someone) who is especially concerned with LGBT justice as it relates to the church, you might consider looking into this.

Duties of this full-time, year-long position include program coordination of Kaleidoscope, our youth and young adults program, and working as assistant to the Executive Director. As a volunteer position, your needs are covered but you won’t be living large on this salary. I’ve found myself in the position to be an unintentional war-tax resister for the last two years, thanks to my small salary. The position is available beginning in August 2007 and is based in Minneapolis, MN. Benefits include room, board, a stipend, and health insurance. Depending on the needs of the volunteer, this position can be hosted by either Lutheran Volunteer Corps (LVC)* or the United Church of Christ Volunteer Ministries (UCCVM)*. The job description can be found at the BMC website, along with more information about BMC: www.bmclgbt.org.

Contact Carol Wise at exdir@bmclgbt.org if you are interested in applying. For more information about the hosting volunteer agencies, see www.lutheranvolunteercorps.org and www.ucc.org/ministries/volunteer. It is a great opportunity to work for LGBTQ justice in the Brethren and Mennonite traditions and gain important experience in community organizing.

*you may notice a bit of an incongruency with a volunteer position for an organization that serves people in the Brethren and Mennonite traditions being hosted by Lutherans or the UCC rather than a Brethren or Mennonite service agency. If you are thinking of volunteering or working with either of these organizations or other church related organizations (Mennonite Central Committee and church related colleges and universities come to mind), you might consider asking them about their discrimination policies and how their values of social justice connect to that discrimination. The church and the military have a lot in common when it comes to discrimination (don’t ask, don’t tell).

I wrote this yesterday before I read Angie’s post. Her thoughts on Dorothy Day and the church reflect very well my own thoughts. While Angie’s post is thoughtful, mine is angry. Maybe in a few days, I can manage thoughtful but for now, this is what I’ve got:

A Little Stunned

A couple days ago, as I was skimming through the Mennonite Weekly Review. I noticed this item on the front page. My immediate response was to roll my eyes and think, “well, they would wouldn’t they?” and I went on with my day. Now, the more I think about it, the saltier I get. Carol Oberholtzer, the chair of the conference’s Women in Leadership Subcommittee, said she “was a little stunned.” Well, I guess so. I mean, this is 2007, and they are having a vote on whether women can be ordained? LGBT people don’t have a chance there. Here’s what I have to say to all those “credentialed leaders” who took that vote: “well done, the church will be better for it.” No, I’m not just blaming the minority that voted against women and justice but all of them, and the rest of the Mennonite Church with them.

I’m left wondering why the Mennonite Church spends so much time scratching its collective head wondering: where are all the young folks? Well, maybe those young folk are scratching their heads wondering: why that vote fell short by less than one percent? Who are those 33.26% of credentialed leaders in the Lancaster Mennonite Conference who said “no thanks” to women’s gifts? Maybe they’re scratching their heads wondering: why do a bunch of men get to hold a vote in the first place (looking for a super-majority I might add) to see if women can be fully ordained pastors rather than just licensed partial pastors. Maybe they are scratching their heads wondering: why did the rest of the church fold to this conference’s demands to be allowed to discriminate at the time of the merger for the blessed “unity” of the church? They may be wondering: will the rest of the church have had enough yet or are they are still grasping onto the myth of “unity?” Thank God for this wonderful “unity” we have in the merged church. “Unity” just seems to be a codeword for “let’s keep the status quo because some powerful minority has held the church hostage.”

The funny thing about that “unity” is that it is false and it comes at the cost of some who aren’t fully allowed in. Does that “unity” apply to the women whose gifts were just “declined” by their own church? Does it apply to the current moderator-elect, Sharon Waltner? Or have her gifts and leadership also been “declined?” No, those women and others throughout the church were just told they are expendable for the “unity of the church.” “Unity” seems to be the reason we can’t have fair honest conversations about sexuality and equality for LGBT Mennonites. “The unity of the church” doesn’t seem to include some of the daughters and sons of the church. But we can’t talk about that, someone might get offended and leave, then where would our “unity” be?

Carol Oberholtzer also said “I don’t think it has quite set in what this means for our conference.” So, I’d love to hear what y’all think it means. Try to look past the rough edges of my post (it’s late and I’m a little salty) and post a comment on this. Are you rolling your eyes or are you pissed off? I’m reminded of that bumper sticker, “if you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention.” So, yeah, I’m angry, this is what my dissent looks like, it’s a little messy, a little radical even. The thing about dissent, you have to really care about the thing you are critiquing, otherwise, you’ll just give up on it and leave. It bothers me to see the church take two steps backwards and get a little less relevant. It bothers me because this is bad for the church.