Our church web page links to this blog, because I am its minister, yet this is not a blog that is run by or owned by the church. It is mine. However, I’ve steered away from talking about candidates on my blogs, because I want to tread carefully around that line, and I know this blog is a blurry spot, as I do say on here that I am a minister of a particular church, and I call the blog Rev. Cyn. And, too, I know our congregation must remain non-partisan. I know I cannot endorse a candidate from the pulpit or in the newsletter. I know we have members who are both Democrat and Republican. And, in fact, I treasure those things. I treasure our diversity. I treasure the separation between church and state. At the same time, as an individual I have strong political leanings, and I feel free to express them in private ways–in yard signs in front of my own house, in bumper stickers on my own car, or as links from my own facebook page.

All that being said, here is a video that a colleague posted on his blog that I found very moving. And it is partisan. It is clearly a video endorsing Obama. Yet if one just listens to the words, it expresses a deep and religious hope, a prayer for our country, that cannot be separated from the religious. And that shows just how complicated this all is.

Well, now it is. Former Jackson resident Chuck Meade has taken this issue to another level, contacting the state’s leading lgbt periodical, Between the Lines. You can read about it at http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=31586. The CitPat says that Meade’s wedding isn’t legal in either this state or the state it’s happening in, but if they were approached by a Jackson couple getting married in a state that recognizes same-sex weddings, then, well, who knows? They’re taking it on a case-by-case basis for now. I notice, however, that the CitPat did publish an Associated Press news article about Ellen DeGeners’ wedding. The policy lines they’re drawing are definitely out-of-touch.

Meanwhile, Marriage Matters Jackson is getting ready to roll out their signing of the Community Marriage Policy in September. Strangely, you won’t find anything about it at http://www.marriagemattersjackson.org/. The last time I saw a copy of the CMP, a document they’re asking clergy and justices to sign, it declared that marriage was an institution ordained by God and that marriage is between one man and one woman. Like the CitPat, their explanation at Marriage Matters for why they state this is that state law defines marriage in our state as between a man and a woman. After working with the committee and striving for openness and inclusiveness, I quit it several months ago.

I’m getting tired of saying this, but it is civil marriage in the state that’s defined as between a man and a woman. Religious marriage is not defined by the state, nor should it be. Same-sex marriage happens all the time in our state, and there’s nothing that prevents the United Way/Marriage Matters or the CitPat from recognizing it. There’s no reason the Milestones section of the paper couldn’t print the announcements, as over 900 other papers, including the Detroit Free Press and News do. And there’s no reason that Marriage Matters couldn’t include same-sex couples in their workshops and advertise that they do so, and include same-sex weddings in their Community Marriage Policy.

First, the Lambeth conference of the Anglican Church recently concluded. A major issue of the conference was the ordination of a gay bishop a few years ago. From reports I’ve heard, it seems that while the Americans and British are divided over the issue, they tend to lean more to the left than Anglicans in other parts of the world. It seems some churches under the Bishop of New Hampshire have been pulling out to be under African bishops.

Second, a local Methodist colleague remarked to me that the United Methodists would have a very different policy about homosexuality if they weren’t part of a world-wide communion. But the African churches again were specifically named as some who band with the Southeastern U.S. and other conservatives in other parts of the world, and their votes dominate on the issue.

Third, I’m thinking about what people have often mused about American Catholics versus the entire Catholic church, and how we’re much more ready to ordain women and married men.

So I’m putting these thoughts together and thinking, is it a good thing that we’re as small a denomination as we are? Does it enable us to have a clearer voice? Does the fact that we’re more homogenous in culture mean that we can take more liberal, open positions? These things would argue yes.

The other side of it, of course, is the gains one gets by being part of a world-wide movement, beyond just numbers and power. Perhaps we are too quick to act on things because we’re a small group of people who agree on issues, and not because they’re really grounded in our faith. Perhaps we vote ourselves into a corner where we’re limiting who can feel comfortable in our churches. We run the risk of being so fringe we’re irrelevant at times.

But, as for me, I’m proud of the stances we take as a denomination, and I cherish our ability to do so. And, at the same time, I’m glad that we as a denomination, and as a district as well, have been encouraging emerging churches in Africa and other parts of the globe, and I love our connection with our Transylvanian and Hungarian brothers and sisters, even if we don’t agree on everything as far as politics may be concerned. Perhaps we have the best situation–a small denomination, with an ever-increasing network of related denominations around the globe.

But we have one thing that none of those denominations I mentioned have: congregational polity. And that gives us the individual ability, as churches, to call ministers of every sexual orientation, gender, marital status, and more. We have polyamorous ministers, transgender ministers, and straight married (to one person) ministers. What a wonderful thing our ability to hold this diversity is! Perhaps, with congregational polity intact, we could grow to the size of the Catholic church and not have the problem of these divisions. The trick is, as always, honoring our diversity. If we can in one small church here that I serve have Republicans and Democrats, Christians and Pagans, gay and straight together, then at least we know it’s possible. We only need to sustain it and strengthen it as we grow.