We at Bethany United Methodist Church would invite gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people -- and perhaps even some straight folk -- who have left Methodism, or any denomination, over exclusion of equal participation to consider trying us once again. Attend either our church (at Clipper and Sanchez) or any UMC in the city or the region in the crucial months ahead. Make yourselves known as either GLBT or straight defenders of these courageous pastors who are putting their careers on the line.
Religious opposition to GLBT rights is the single greatest obstacle to our full rights as citizens of this nation -- as is apparent when politicians always cite biblical references as their exclusionary defense. Some mainline Christian denomination must break through first. Once one does, others will follow. We would be proud for the precedent to come in United Methodism with the help of many new allies whom we, in turn, can also nurture.
We regard Jan. 16, 1999, in Sacramento as potentially significant in church history as Oct. 31, 1517, when Martin Luther posted 95 theses on the door at Wittenberg.
Bethany United Methodist Church
Methodists, Leftists, and Gays, Oh My!
I am a bit disappointed, but not surprised, at the feature "The Holy War Over Gay Marriage," by Matt Smith. I also continue to wonder who the audience is that is being targeted by such promotional opinions, just as I would an article written by a sports-hater about why diving should not be part of the Olympics.
The "church" is the defined Body of Christ, representative of the testament on Earth to God and his loving, saving plans for mankind. The church willingly has no permission to, of its own will and direction, alter the word of God (the Bible and its inclusive Jewish heritage) or to fail to recognize one portion over the other.
Yet your claim is that the long-since apostate United Methodist Church affiliates in California are on a crusade to "rightly" reform biblical teaching in a simile to the true church's stands taken in the Civil War against slavery. I contend that the two fights are not synonymous and that to say they are is a gross ignorance of the basis of the church itself.
I do agree with Smith in that the word "pastor" is not capitalized in referring to the UMC officiates wishing to part from the denomination by "marrying" homosexuals, for such "pastors" are not at all what the title represents. There is not the option for any church officiate to ignore or alter such scriptures as 1 Kings 22, Amos 4, Matthew 10, Romans 1, Romans 13, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, 1 Thessalonians 4, etc. There is no Christian interest in promoting this sexual agenda. God made sex as a pleasurable, procreative representation of his own son's relationship to the church and this is scriptural (1 Corinthians 13).
San Francisco and its leftist media is certainly a promoter of this, and many of the city's "mainline" churches have so fallen into only selectively recognizing their biblical foundations that even the UMC in Chinatown has sent its laypeople this last week to "diversity training" outside of the Chinatown area (a brilliant move, I suppose, since this avoids the uprising from any incidental Christians who may still be worshipping there).
Somehow, the city has altered the view of the pure and upright to exclude anything not congruous with its leftist sex-agenda of overthrowing family structure. No wonder San Francisco is known internationally as "no place to raise a family."
The UMC surely must rein in its promoters of a social agenda in such ill-begotten articles as this one and let the pretenders hide behind another banner. Otherwise, it risks the wrath due any other heresy which is hateful of families, normality, and the children of God.
Boulware's an Idiot
Why do you write? If the story of Julia Butterfly ("Up a Tree. Still?" Nov. 11) cannot inspire you to join in the cause (of humanity), nor enlighten you that environmentalist issues have no end until every breathing human being, down to the last greedy f-ck-all businessman, shares even a glimpse of the beauty that surrounds us, what on earth could motivate you to become a journalist? Your article serves to betray countless activists, concerned citizens, and a most extraordinary and eloquent heroine whose efforts continue to draw attention to the deals -- i.e., Gov. Wilson's bill -- which preserve a mere 7,500 of 60,000 acres for oh, just $245 million of our money. If you think that equates to saving the Headwaters, you are an idiot. Or worse, an employee of Charles Hurwitz.
Boulware's Damn Near an Idiot
While I appreciate the prominence of Jack Boulware's article on the Headwaters Forest ("Up a Tree. Still?"), I was saddened by the author's lack of sensitivity to what is perhaps the core issue.
So many activists like Julia Butterfly and members of groups such as Earth First! and Rainforest Action Network have been inspired to put themselves between the chain saws and the trees because Charles Hurwitz's relationship to his forest is so abusive.
Headwaters Forest is like a child -- innocent, defenseless, and possessing enormous potential. Hurwitz's role in relation to the forest (whether he accepts the responsibility or not) is that of caretaker or, more appropriately, guardian.
And Hurwitz has been molesting his forest.
I chose my words carefully; I am not overdramatizing here to promote the protection of this or any forest. As a person who endured incest at a very young age, I know exactly what it feels like to be molested. And I feel this same sentiment hanging over Headwaters like a depressing fog.
The Headwaters "victory" Boulware so enthusiastically champions, which provides Hurwitz with half-a-billion taxpayer dollars, feels as virtuous to me as our government paying an abusive father tens of thousands of dollars if he agrees to limit his molesting to a more tolerable schedule.
The Headwaters deal still leaves Hurwitz with 200,000 acres of forest to cut. This is absolutely unjust. Hurwitz has proven himself an untrustworthy custodian of any forest. He does not deserve custody of a single tree. Headwaters, and all forests in his possession, should be immediately taken away from him.
Boulware Writes Nice, for an Idiot
Hmmm boy. Jack Boulware is a fine writer, and I enjoyed his profile of Julia Butterfly ("Up a Tree. Still?"). But his simplistic take on the complex Headwaters struggle is bizarre for such a smart guy.
Perhaps it's too much to expect an acerbic city beat type like Boulware to fully understand that north woods environmentalists aren't going to celebrate a compromise deal that allows full logging by "leverage artist" (that kills me -- try "criminal") Charles Hurwitz on most of Pacific Lumber's holdings.
After years of bad-faith practices (as amply evidenced by the numerous infractions cited in the article), not to mention Judi Bari's assassination, why would environmentalists relax now? Whatever twisty journalistic effect he was after, I found it nonetheless sweet that even cynical Jack's heart was touched by Butterfly.