****************************************************

In early May, 2000, the United Methodist Church held its General Conference in Cleveland, Ohio.  This conference happens every 4 years in the UMC.   There were several events that occurred at this conference which prompted the following letter.  This letter was sent by me to every United Methodist Bishop in the United States (there are about 50 such Bishops), I also sent this letter to all of my former pastors that I was able to track down, including my own father.  To date, I have only received a single reply (outside of many personal discussions with my father) which I have included at the end of this document.  Coincidentally, the date of the mailing of this letter (May 22, 2000) would have been the 90th birthday of my grandfather Alvin Kraatz.  My grandfather was a lifetime member of the United Methodist Church and he was a significant influence on me personally and spiritually in my younger years.   I think he would be proud of the ideas expressed in this document.

 ****************************************************

 

This is an open letter to United Methodist Clergy and Administration.

              I write this letter after some very lengthy consideration and prayer, for the things of which I would like to write are not trivial.  I have followed with interest the events that recently took place at the 2000 General Conference in Cleveland and I have found some of those events to be both disappointing and disturbing in a number of respects.  I hope you will understand that I do not find any of you personally to be disagreeable, in fact my long-standing membership in the United Methodist Church has found a great many of you to be a blessing to my family and to myself in countless ways.   The Church, however, has in recent years established and sanctioned certain unrelenting and unjust policies with which I can no longer abide.  It is my hope that you will permit me briefly to address some of those issues here.

              The Church’s recent efforts to bring an increased awareness to the issue of racist sports mascots (specifically, those which are degrading to American Indians) is certainly deserving of praise.  The United Methodist Church has been progressive in this respect, seeking to distance itself from such disrespectful images well before it was fashionable to do so.  Moreover, the resolutions of the Church with regard to the treatment of American Indians have reflected a desire on the part of the Church to redeem itself somewhat from the dismal history of Christianity in North America.  A fine example of such desire is found in a resolution (adopted by the Church in 1988) which states that:

WHEREAS, The United Methodist Church has historically held tribal lands for mission purposes and contemporarily holds Indian lands originally secured for purposes of missionary work of the Church among Native Americans; and
WHEREAS, some of their land is no longer used for purpose of mission among Native Americans;
   Be it resolved, that all such lands held by the Church, where there is no intention of continuing or developing ministries among the respective Native Americans, be transferred without compensation to the ownership of the Indian nation within whose bounds it exists, or to the Indian nation that was the original owner. (The Book of Resolutions, 1996, p. 89)

            Although this “resolution” displays some amount of integrity on the part of the Church, I find the qualification which limits the return of tribal lands to those lands for which “there is no intent of continuing or developing ministries among the respective Native Americans” to be disingenuous.  What is implied here is that the possession of stolen land is justified if it is possessed for missionary purposes.  In 1992, the General Conference adopted a “Confession to Native Americans” which plainly admitted the Church’s role in the “destruction of Native American people, culture, and religious practices” and also affirmed “the rights of the native peoples to practice and participate in traditional ceremonies and rituals” (The Book of Resolutions, 1996, p. 218).   In fact the Native American Comprehensive Plan (NACP), developed by the 1992 General Conference, explicitly directs that American Indians are no longer to be viewed as a mission of the Church at all.  One has to wonder, in light of these 1992 documents, how the Church can legitimate the continued holding of tribal lands for purposes of “missions.”  The confession and resolutions to which I refer mean nothing unless the Church returns ALL tribal lands to their rightful owners.              

             It is apparent that this need to return tribal lands is recognized somewhat by the Church, as the General Conference directed in 1988 “1. That the General board of Global Ministries develop a comprehensive study and report on the use by the United Methodist Church of American Indian lands for mission purposes since 1784, in consultation with the Native American International Caucus and the Oklahoma Indian Missionary Conference; and 2. That the board report include the intended disposition of any unused land” (The Book of Resolutions, 1996, p. 80).  Given the somewhat increased representation of American Indians among the delegates to the General Conference this year, I was looking forward to hearing of the results of this study as directed in 1988.  The United Methodist News Service reported (on its web-site, May 6, 2000), however, that “Native Americans also are calling on the denomination to agree to a four-year land study. The church owns land or ministries on reservations or tribal lands, and Indians are asking for a study on the disposition of those properties. The group wants the lands that are not being used returned to the tribes whose ancestors owned them.”   

Now, in the first place, one has to wonder why the Church must do a “study” in order to find out what is in its own possession.  Moreover, it must be regarded as unlikely (except in instances of extreme incompetence and disorganization) that the Church does not know of the purposes for which the lands it possesses are being used or will be used in the future.  The directive, therefore, to perform such a “study” can only be seen as indicating either ignorance or dishonesty on the part of the Church.  It is evident to anyone who has casually followed the Church’s relationship to the American Indian community that the United Methodist Church already agreed to such a study 12 years ago, in fact the General Conference directed that the study be done.  Why is it that 12 years later the study has not yet been done?  And what would we learn from such a study that we do not already know?  Continued delay in these matters constitutes a prolonged thievery on the part of the Church, and the deliberate prolongation of this situation will make it impossible for any apology the Church may set forth to be taken seriously by anyone.  The integrity of the Church can only be reflected in the immediate return of all tribal lands.

              Not only should the Church act on the apology delivered in its 1992 “Confession to Native Americans” by returning tribal lands, the Church should also take more seriously its own 1992 directive to see that “Native American history, culture, and contemporary affairs will be an integral part of ministry and administrative training for all aspects of the United Methodist Church” (The Book of Resolutions, 1996, p. 328) by apologizing for specific historical events in which the Church has participated.  To deliver such a general apology while glossing over or conveniently omitting references to specific crimes against the American Indian community only diminishes the respect one may find within such an apology. 

             As an example of what I am referring to, I might mention the name of the Reverend John M. Chivington.  The Church may have forgotten this name, but it is still infamous among many Cheyenne, Arapaho and other American Indians who remember the massacre at Sand Creek, Colorado (November 29, 1864).   While Chivington was serving as a colonel in the Colorado Volunteers, he planned and led an unexpected dawn attack on a friendly band of Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians.  Hundreds of helpless people were slaughtered by way of the efforts of this barbaric Methodist minister.  I wonder, would the General Conference need a directive to perform a study prior to advancing an apology for these events of its own history?  Would such an apology be forthcoming even a dozen years from now?

              The United Methodist Church has blood on its hands and land under its feet for which it must atone.  The continued patronizing of American Indian delegates with vague apologies and promises to do studies does not even begin to satisfy this duty.

Paradoxically, coupled with the historical forced inclusion of American Indians in the life of the Church is the forced exclusion of others.  Of course, many people around the world have been following the Church’s “discussions” concerning homosexuality for quite some time.  I am greatly troubled by the Church’s continued declaration that homosexuality is “inconsistent with Christian teaching,” more troubling still is the Church’s use of this claim in order to justify policies of segregation, discrimination and intimidation.  Here is why I find these things troubling.  First, in claiming that homosexuality is “inconsistent with Christian teaching,” the Church is claiming that what counts as “Christian teaching” extends beyond the material “taught” by Christ.  This much is obvious, since Christ did not (according to the Gospels) “teach” anything concerning sexual orientation.  Certainly there are passages in sacred text outside the Gospels which address this issue, but there are many other such Biblical texts that the Church obviously does not include in its understanding of “Christian teaching.”  For example, although it is true that the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy contain apparently strong condemnations of homosexuality, these texts also contain specific hygienic laws and other precepts concerning a multitude of behaviors.  Why then are some of these precepts considered “Christian teaching” and not others?  Why is the church so insistent that while some Old Testament prescriptions may be disregarded, others may not?   What are the criteria for this distinction?   None has been offered. 

The writings of the Apostle Paul in the New Testament have been seen by many as justifying the Church’s openly discriminatory anti-gay policies.  Paul and Jesus were both, however, very aware of the temptation to make an idol out of the Law – the Law was made for us, not we for it.  Like anything that is “made for us,” the Law can outlive its usefulness.  If this is not the case, then the Church has engaged in a theological and exegetical “slight of hand” in selectively affirming the eternal status of some Biblical precepts while completely ignoring others.  After the vote which re-affirmed these policies of exclusion, the United Methodist News Service posted (on May 11, 2000) a story containing this statement from a delegate: “Roger Elliott, a delegate from North Carolina [and, by the way, the pastor who confirmed me in the United Methodist Church on December 5, 1976], spoke against the minority report. ‘This is not an issue on which we can compromise,’ he said. ‘We don’t believe it is a greater sin than others, but it is a sin.’ The report was defeated 585 to 376.”  If the Church’s position is that being gay is not “a greater sin than others,” as Reverend Elliott puts it, then why is being gay so much more the foundation of policies of exclusion than other alleged sins?  Or is Reverend Elliott a delegate in the majority who misrepresents the majority position?

            Secondly, and since you have all no doubt heard the foregoing arguments before, what of the Church’s treatment of those who have passionately, peacefully and non-violently dissented from these sanctions?  The events that transpired in Cleveland this year have cast an eerie shadow on the Church.  For the Church has declared not only that homosexuality is “inconsistent with Christian teaching,” but it has also claimed by way of its actions that having one’s enemies arrested and incarcerated is indeed consistent with Christian teaching.  Where is the sacred text that would confirm the Christianity of this?  Indeed there is none, in fact there are many actual teachings of Christ that would plainly proscribe such actions.  This perfervid holding to that which is “consistent with Christian teaching” has made the Church itself inconsistent with Christianity.

I have for a long time been an admirer of the great Christian leader of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  In his well-known “Letter from Birmingham Jail” King writes that “All segregation ordinances are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.  It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.  Segregation, in the terminology of Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, ‘substitutes an I-It relationship for an I-Thou relationship, and ends up relegating persons to the status of things.’”  The Church’s policy of excluding gays from ordination and marriage is indeed a segregation ordinance, as it places a “for straight people only” sign upon these blessings of God’s everlasting grace.  How can this be construed as anything less than shameful on the part of the Church?

I imagine that this is not an easy letter for any of you to read, and I am certain that it has not been an easy one to write.  As a person raised in the United Methodist Church, having grown up in the family of a United Methodist pastor, having spent my high school years enjoying the many blessings of the United Methodist Youth Fellowship, having attended and graduated from a United Methodist college, having gotten married in the United Methodist Church, having served on staff-parish relations committees and having served as a lay delegate to an annual conference, the decision to withdraw my membership has not been an easy decision to make.  Until this year’s General Conference, even though I had serious disagreements with the Church on these matters for quite some time, I believed that there was a possibility for change – that the Church would be able to find a better more Just and respectful path.  But the events of the 2000 General Conference have demonstrated that this will not happen; studies will continue to be postponed indefinitely, lands will not be returned to their rightful owners, the people who make the Church’s policies will continue to dole out God’s blessings of marriage and ordination piecemeal only to others whom they perceive as being sufficiently like themselves.  If there were any hope of change, the people voicing dissenting opinions would not be systematically ignored for decades at a time and then subsequently arrested.  My continued membership in the United Methodist Church would, therefore, reasonably constitute consent on my part to these racist and heterosexist practices – and I refuse to be a part of any of this.

At least one member of the United Methodist clergy has openly suggested that my leaving the Church is an action resulting from the influence of the “devil.”  I can only respond to this by saying that if there be such a thing as a “devil,” then my leaving the Church is certainly a result of that devil’s influence.  I think it is very appropriate to portray the evils of racism, theft and intimidation as “devilish” in their character, and I will always turn my back on them and leave whenever I am able to do so.  I suspect, however, that the evil influence to which this person was alluding was not the collection of Church policies and practices to which I have referred, but rather his idea that I may be considering some kind of separation from Christianity as such.  This concern is certainly appreciated, and I will keep it in mind as I set out to find another community of faith which exhibits more concern for things like peace, love, respect and forgiveness than it does for law and the domination of minority views.

I want to thank each of you personally for the many positive things you have contributed to my faith – I consider each of you to be a blessing.  Thank you also for taking the time to read this lengthy letter.  I wish you all God’s grace and love.

                                                             Sincerely,

                                                             Dr. Christian Kraatz, Jr.
                                                                         Former United Methodist

************************************************************* 

 

Here's the one and only response that I received.  Dated June 7, 2000, this is from Marion M. Edwards, Resident Bishop, North Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church.

Dear Dr. Kraatz,

             Thank you for your thought provoking letter of May 22, 2000 written as an open letter to United Methodist Clergy and Administration.  I have read your letter with great concern, appreciation and pain.  Thank you for being open and honest about your observations and analysis of our United Methodist Church at this significant point in our history.

             I am indeed saddened that you feel that you must leave our denomination because of its lack of clear direction in areas that you observe to be paramount.  I respect your opinion and your decision even with the pain it brings.

             Please pray for those of us that will remain within this denomination that God might guide us perhaps in bearing more faithful witness in our church's life and future.

                                                                                            Sincerely,

                                                                                            Marion M. Edwards

***********************************************************

             I appreciated the time it took to send this thoughtful response.  As I understood things when I wrote my letter, however, I had not left the church because of any "lack of clear direction."  In fact, the direction of the Church seemed all too clear, and it seemed to me a very bad direction that was becoming increasingly resistant to any possibility for change.  My suspicions were confirmed 4 years later at the 2004 General Conference when (a) there was no mention of the status of Church-owned tribal lands anywhere in the agenda, and (b) the Church's anti-gay policies were reaffirmed, this time by a much wider margin (674 to 262) than in 2000. 

             Read about the 2004 vote as posted by the UMC news service:
                     "Delegates affirm stance against ordaining practicing homosexuals"

             Tell the UMC what you think and how you feel:
                     Submit comments to the Church here

             Please let me know your thoughts on these matters if you like; ckraatz@iupui.edu

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Back to Chris Kraatz's "other stuff" page