An Open Letter to Pastor Charles Worley

May 23, 2012

Pastor Charles Worley
Providence Road Baptist Church
3283 Providence Mill Road
Maiden, NC 28650

AN OPEN LETTER

Dear Pastor Worley:

I have followed your recent incendiary statements about your desire to incarcerate gay and lesbian people behind an electric fence until they all die off. Though I find your statements repugnant and so far removed from the love and compassion of Jesus as to be unimaginable, you are certainly within your freedom to voice those words. However, I do have one issue that simply cannot go unnoticed without confrontation.

I know that you are aware that a peaceful protest is planned for this Sunday, May 27, at or near the vicinity of your church location. The word is now out that you and your congregation will be meeting in another, secret place. In all of the bombast of your sermon, you sounded as though you were, in your mind at least, making prophetic statements. The Biblical prophets often said things that made other people very uncomfortable and caused those same folk to react against the statements. However, those blessed prophets stood their ground and faced whatever heat came their way.

If you are going to make the statements as you did, at least have the balls to publicly stand on your remarks before a peaceful protest. The counter-response toward you will not be vicious as were your remarks to our gay and lesbian friends. Yours is not the stance of a prophet. It is the stance of a coward.

In hopes of someday cooling the rhetoric,

Gary West
Pastor

This letter was mailed to Pastor Worley on May 23, 2012

A World Our Graduates Face

It's that time of the year. Our little corner of the world is a microcosm of what is happening all over. It's graduation time. Young college and graduate students that we have known and loved began to graduate about two weeks ago. High School seniors start picking up their diplomas in about another two weeks. It is a time of rejoicing and pride with and toward those beautiful young lives.

Each in their own way will soon start moving on another level in this big world. They face a difficult time, perhaps even harder than their parents faced, at least economically and in the process of job-searching. But they are also facing a world divided, angry, and seared with idiocy.

Two cases in point: This Saturday afternoon, a Ku Klux Klan rally will be held in the northern end of our county in a small community named Harmony, NC (Is that name ironic or what?). I once saw a klansman standing on a street corner in Nashville, TN,. That was in the late 60's. But today? In Harmony, NC?? In the 21st century??? Yet that's a part of the world our graduates will face.

And then there is Pastor Charles Worley of the Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, NC, who is presently experiencing his fifteen minutes of shame. Pastor Worley personifies homophobic. In his Mother's Day sermon, he gave his answer to the issue of all the "queers and homosexuals." Incarcerate them behind an electric fence, drop food to them, wait......and soon they will die off. There is so much to unpack in his statements that is repugnant that I won't even try. However, my 14 year old granddaughter said that such wishful thinking on the pastor's part is "borderline holocaust." I think she is on to something. Don't kill them as, according to some interpreters, the good book says. Just corral them like cattle until they all die.

Pastor Worley is an embarrassment to the Jesus way. He is a pathetic bully. And he represents something of what our graduates will have to face.

But I have confidence in these young people, at least the ones I know. I think someday they are going to make a lot of their elders squirm when they ask, almost in unison, "what in the world were you thinking?" And I believe that they are, in spirit, going to emulate one of the loveliest scenes I have ever witnessed.

Yesterday I sat in a medical office waiting room. I glanced up for a second as an older African-American woman shuffled her way toward the receptionist. She was stooped, her hair was white, her face reflecting a sense of discomfort. I looked away for just a moment and then returned to the woman only to see someone else alongside her. The second person, also a woman, was elderly, but tall, well-dressed, sophisticated, and carried herself with an air of confidence. And she was white. Then I realized that she was accompanying the first woman, slightly touching her elbow, guiding her toward the window where she would be greeted. As the receptionist spoke with the "patient", the second woman stepped back so as to allow some privacy. When that conversation was finished, she took her friend by the elbow and began to guide her toward an area of the building where lab work was done.

A few years ago, those roles would have been reversed. A black woman, regardless of how she might have felt, would have posssibly accompanied a white woman who needed some care. But things have changed....even though some in Harmony, NC and elsewhere don't understand such change. And that change will continue, like ripples in a pond.

Graduates, blessings on you. Be change-agents. And be compassionate.

Recommended Reading

During the summer months we shall explore the subject of "The Emergent Church" in our community of faith. I sense that it is an idea with which we should reckon. I am enjoying the study as I prepare to speak to this subject. As usual, my way of getting ready for this type of effort is to read as much as I can on the subject and then bounce ideas/questions off of others.

Many of you who follow this blog are folk with whom I interface on some kind of basis. We are living in a time when numerous voices tell us that we are on the cusp of some kind of spiritual awakening. Guesses are made as to what that means, but no one really knows at this point. What will the church look like in coming years? What shape of expression will it take? How will we "practice" our spirituality? I would like to appeal to you to join me in the asking of these, and other, questions and together join our eyes and hearts as we watch what unfolds.

I read a lot. It is a passion of mine. I am affected, I think for the good, by the ideas of others. Occasionally I come across a book that really works me over. I have almost finished one that is doing just that. The title is THE UNDERGROUND CHURCH: RECLAIMING THE SUBVERSIVE WAY OF JESUS. The author is Robin Meyers, a United Church of Christ minister in Oklahoma City. His is that unusual and remarkable ability to pack stimulating ideas into every paragraph. It's taking me a little longer to read because I re-read a lot, not because I don't understand but because I do understand and I just need to wrestle with it all a bit. Meyers says some things that, in all honesty, I wish he wouldn't say because it calls me up so short. But then Jesus said even more that I wish had not be said and I have to wrestle with that too. Meyers frames Jesus' teachings in a way that I can't escape or explain away.

I invite you to get the book and read it. Perhaps you will want to purchase it, or maybe join with some friends in getting it and then pass it around. If you read it, I would like to hear your thoughts.

Right now I'm thinking that "The Emergent Church" (whatever that may mean and I hope to find out) may become truer to its calling if it becomes "The Underground Church."

Legislating So As Not To Be Bothered

Last night in a discussion group I attend, my friend, Jim Lawton, made a salient point. He quoted Tommy Tomlinson, columnist for the Charlotte Observer, who wrote AGAINST the proposed Amendment One, which will be voted on Tuesday, May 8. Tomlinson's take is that legislation should be for the purpose of protecting us all from issues of harm. Amendment One takes a different track; it is designed by and for those who are "bothered" by same-sex relationships and possible marriage. Traffic laws are meant to protect us. Amendment One simply speaks to the idea that some folk are "bothered" when they see two people of the same sex relating to each other in an intimate way.

Many will say that it is unnatural. Of course it is; the folk so complaining are hetersexual, so it would not be natural to them. Most will try to take the high moral ground and base their arguement on biblical grounds (The Bible says....). But if you are going to take Leviticus 18 ever so literally and say that it is absolute, then you have to take the rest of that book, as well as all of the Torah, literally and then you are going to have a heap of problems. We cannot cherry-pick this stuff; take what we see as important and reject the rest. Likewise, the words in the New Testament translated homosexual and the cultural background need a long hard look. It really is not as it seems and so glibly read. There is a lot of hard interpretive work to do, but lots of folk don't want to be "bothered" with that kind of effort. (Maybe another amendment is brewing here...make sacred readings literal and never interpretive). Hmmmm

Then there is the arguement of how same-sex relationships endanger our family life. Yesterday I celebrated 27 of the best years of my life with my wife, Patti. Like other couples, we have had to work through some matters. But not once have we ever been derailed by a same-sex relationship. Not once. And our children have had their own struggles and questions. But they report that not once have they been impacted for the bad by same-sex relationships. We have just not been bothered by it. Is that the reason we are against Amendment One?

If we are going to legislate so as not to be bothered, where do we stop? If it bothers you when someone sitting next to you in a restaurant orders an alcoholic beverage, do we need an amendment here? What about folk who use earthy language in public? Another amendment? And all those pesky liberals. Can we somehow legislate them out of order because they might bother us with their theories? And for sure, what do we do about folk in this region who cheer for the Dallas Cowboys instead of the Carolina Panthers? Another amendment please.

You're probably not going to be able to leave your house in the morning, drive down the street and around the corner, without seeing something that bothers you. Is an amendment necessary?

Laws should be in place to protect us from harm. Never should they be passed simply because we are bothered by something. And if Amendment One passes, it potentially can bring harm to some of our citizens.

THAT should bother us!

Talking Points on Amendment One

In North Carolina on May 8, we will vote on a proposed amendment to our state constitution which reads, "Constitutional Amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state." I will vote against the amendment. Here are some of the reasons why. 1. The main purpose of this amendment is to squelch any possibility of same-sex marriage being legalized in this state. The law already states that marriage is defined only as that union of a man and a woman. To say any more is to be redundant. We don't have to repeat ourselves. If the possibility of approving same-sex marriage ever comes to us for consideration, let's debate it at that time and then make the decision. 2. As in the physicians oath, we should make sure that we "do no harm." In spite of the fact that loud voices are saying that this would never impact the reality of domestic violence, child custody, expulsion of benefits for partners that are honored by some corporations, or older citizens who share lives without marriage for financial and retirement reasons, experience in other states says otherwise. States that have had similar statutes have had to go back and adjust laws in order to protect citizens. This takes a while, but in the case of domestic violence victims, a "while" can be way too long. It can be long enough for tragedy to occur. We don't know how this will all play out, but do we want to run the risk of someone, somehow being harmed? 3. There are leaders, both religious and political, who are trying to lead sincere, well-intentioned people to take the high moral ground and vote for this amendment. The problem is that although they decry arguements against the amendment as being ludicrous, it is evident they have not done their research. They are speaking loudly based on false evidence and that is deceitful. It is also immoral. 4. If the amendment passes, look for someone or some group to file suit which will throw it all into the courts for decision and possible repeal. What a waste of time and money!!! (See point 1). 5. Finally, and I think, most importantly, it will build discrimination into our state constitution. There is no way to dress up that fact....it discriminates. And in our region of the country, we know the ugliness of legalized discrimination. Surely, surely, we don't want to start down that road again.

No To Amendment One

On May 8 the citizens of North Carolina will be voting on Amendment One which reads on the ballot "Constitutional Amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state." I WILL VOTE AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT AND I ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO THE SAME. I will have other things to say as the date approaches for our vote. On this occasion I want to share the words of a fellow sojourner, Neal Grose, who pulled together some thoughts for consideration. It was originally intended as a letter to the editor and may still appear in that forum, but Neal has given me permission to share his thoughts.

"As proud and concerned citizens of North Carolina, we oppose the passage of the proposed Amendment One which restricts the recognition of legal unions in state to the legal marriage of one man and one woman for the following reasons:

1) Amendment One negates the most basic of our principles - that the rights of an individual are not subject to the vote of a simple majority. That is why they are called "rights" and not "privileges".

2) This amendment violates the principle of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution insuring that the states shall provide equal protection of rights under the law.

3) This amendment almost certainly violates Article IV, Section 1 of the Federal Constitution guaranteeing that states shall give full faith and credit to contracts given by other states. This was, in fact, the primary reason given for its introduction in the legislature; namely, that North Carolina was incapable of providing this most basic service to its citizens.

4) This amendment would enshrine into our state's constitution a principle that is chiefly a theological view. While this may be a view of the majority of Christians, it is by no means unanimous. An increasing number of congregations now support the blessing of same sex couples.

5) Our first consideration should be to do no harm. Passage of this amendment would negate rights and protections of domestic partnership for which law enforcement agencies and our courts have worked for many years.

As a Christian community, we follow the dictates of our Lord Jesus who instructed us first and foremost to act with compassion. We follow the instructions of Paul when he counseled us in Romans 2:1-3 that judgment is reserved for and by God."

In its most basic form, this builds discrimination into our state's constitution. We don't need that at all.

More forthcoming in time.

Salahuddin Hasan

I flirted with inter-faith dialogue and understanding for some time. But it was not until I met Salahuddin Hasan over fifteen years ago that I really made this a more consistent part of my on-going pilgrimage. He challenged me "to come on board" so to speak and to reach out to those of other faiths so that I might learn and relate. My attempts at doing so have been nothing short of enriching. And now my mentor is gone. Salahuddin died yesterday morning after a rather lengthy time of ill health.

Salahuddin was the Imam at Masjid-Al-Muminum here in our city for many years. His wife, Linda, was the manager for a dozen years or so at My Sister's House, the local shelter for women and children fleeing abuse. Though he was a great talker, theirs was not a faith-expression of words. They acted. And in so doing, they made a difference.

Salahuddin held his convictions strongly. He was not going to be intimidated by anyone. But he encouraged others in their convictions, even if they differed from his. Following 9/11, he bore down hard, insisting that Christians, Muslims, Jews, and anyone else talk to each other, get to know each other, walk and work together. Our community of faith and his celebrated numerous Thanksgiving Eve worship services together.

I know that the heat continues to be turned up by some Christians insisting that their way is the only way to God. I reject that notion and have long since moved past it. The way of Jesus works for me. But there are many roads on this one journey and Salahuddin found the way that worked for him. To believe there is only one road is to claim complete understanding of the mind of God and, for me, is an arrogance to the nth degree.

I know. I know. Many will want to quote John 14:6 about Jesus announcing, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." That's clear enough, right? Well, take a deep breath and hear me say - I don't believe Jesus ever said that. In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus doesn't talk a whole lot about himself. In John's Gospel, he just talks on and on. The "I am" statements are prime examples. It only makes sense to me that much later followers, looking back at who Jesus had become for them, put those words into Jesus' mouth and now the church has tried to make them mandatory for everyone. No sale, here. But by the way, while we are on the subject, what was "The Way" of Jesus? Was it not for everyone to die to self and come alive to a whole new unfolding experience? And that is the main thrust of all major faith expressions.

Salahuddin helped teach me this.

He was strong and gentle, intense and humble, lover of family and a gift to friends. And I will miss him. Rest in peace, Salahuddin Hasan.