February 2001
Noreen Miller
Box 198
Armstrong, Iowa 50514

Bishop Gregory V. Palmer
United Methodist Church, Iowa Conference
500 East Court Avenue, Suite C

Dear Bishop Palmer,

I want to thank you on behalf of Dennis Bell, David Stanley, and myself, for meeting with us on October 9, 2000. We appreciate your willingness to listen and learn about the Methodist Laity Reform Movement, and we were heartened to hear your testimony and beliefs.

If you recall, we mentioned during our meeting that a group of lay persons studied the Christians and Sexuality Manual (C & S) developed by the Human Sexuality Task Force of the Iowa Annual Conference. You wondered during our discussion as to why they reinvented the wheel because Nashville had already developed a program. Since our meeting, I have read the program materials you referred to, entitled Let’s Be Real; and I also wonder why it is not being used. I find its content more in harmony with our United Methodist tradition, beliefs, and policies as stated in the Discipline than the program being used in the Iowa Conference.

I am enclosing the evaluation of the C & S Manual. Also included are comments by the individuals who read and studied the manual. The lay persons who took their time to do this respectfully ask you to read and consider their analyzes. What is being taught to our young people is of the utmost concern to all of us, as I am sure it is to you.

We in the Methodist Laity Reform Movement continue to pray for you and your family as you minister in the Iowa Conference. 

In Christ’s Service, 

Noreen Miller, Co-Chair, Methodist Laity Reform Movement

______________________________________________________

February 2001 

An Evaluation of the Christians and Sexuality Manual (C & S)

The cover sheet of the manual states: AA Curriculum for Junior High Youth and Their Parents Developed by the Human Sexuality Task Force of the Iowa Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church

This evaluation is based on the study and research of the C & S Manual by members of the Methodist Laity Reform Movement Board of Directors.

General Observations: The Christians and Sexuality Manual contains some good materials and ideas; however, in spite of some positive factors, certain parts make the material inappropriate and questionable for use in our United Methodist Churches. The areas of inappropriate and questionable materials are listed in the following summary.

1. Section 11, Background Material, pp 25-28

This article has no place in any UMC curriculum or teaching materials. See p 25, paragraph 6, which states, “The Bible must continually be reinterpreted by the religious community to fit each new historical context, sometimes even to the point of doing a 180 degree turn.” This is in direct opposition to our Wesleyan heritage of standing on the primacy of Scripture and working, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to be change agents, and to see lives transformed by the power of the living Christ. Our methods of proclaiming the Gospel may change, but there are certain core beliefs in Scripture upon which we have traditionally and still do stand firm. To try and make the Bible “..fit each new historical context...” is to try and make God fit into our mold rather than us fitting into his. Minor theological differences are one thing...core beliefs are quite another. The UMC exists for the basic purpose of making and nurturing disciples for Jesus Christ. It is not an open forum for religious ideas that are not in harmony with those core beliefs. Our published materials should honor that fact.

2. Selected Bibliography is Biased and Out of Harmony with UMC Book of Discipline.

The list of books is biased in the promotion of homosexuality as an acceptable life style. No reference is given to tell of Christ’s transforming power for those caught up in that lifestyle. It is obvious that this, as well as the article by Bellis, (attempting to deny much of the validity of the Bible), are included for the basic purpose of trying to make a case for the acceptance of homosexuality as just another life style, not really to be looked at with the negative view which Scripture projects. This position is out of harmony with our Book of Discipline regarding homosexuality.

3. “Our Sexual Attitudes Survey” p, 53

The instructions should not state, “There are no right or wrong answers.” This teaches young people that there is no definite truth regarding the things listed on the survey.

This is not in keeping with the word of God. It is more like situation ethics reasoning giving the idea that...nothing is wrong unless you think it is wrong...or...just do what seems right at the moment.

4. Definitions Worksheet, p. 65

These terms are not appropriate for young people of this age, and any age should not have to learn and say vulgar slang, even in a class setting.

5. Note to Leaders, p.85, paragraph 2

This paragraph tells young people that the “...Church is a practical, non-judgmental, relevant source of help when it comes to the tough issues of life.” -non-judgmental? - - meaning what? The Church is to proclaim the Word of God, the Bible. The Bible is about God’s love, yes, but it is also clear about God’s holiness and his judgment on sin. God has declared certain behavior to be wrong. When we declare his Word, we are declaring a judgment which he, not us, has already made. God is love, and God is holy. There is joyous affirmation, and there is a warning of judgment. To not teach this to our youth is not being honest and is a deceitful use of God’s word.

6. Pp. 42, 68 and 75

The Wesley Quadrilateral is presented as a help in interpreting Scripture. The primacy of Scripture is mentioned, but it is not emphasized as the base on which tradition, experience, and reason must rest. This attitude appears to be reflected throughout the manual; for example on p.93, line 7-9, reason is stated on the side of the quadrilateral that is used to “pull the wisdom of the other three sides into perspective.” This is saying that reason is primary.

6. On page 5, paragraph 4, the last line states that this curriculum is designed to “...include those elements that the Church is uniquely qualified to speak to and most clearly responsible for providing guidance in.” Because the material in the manual downplays the importance of any absolutes and minimizes the authority of Scripture, how can it clearly and responsibly speak and give guidance about important matters?

Even more areas than those listed above are questionable. Some of these are addressed in the comments by individual readers of the Manual. These comments are given separately on the following pages.

The consensus of the members who read the C & S Manual is that although it contains some good information, it includes far too much material that is not conducive to spiritual growth through good Biblical teaching. It is recommended that the C & S Manual should not be used by anyone in its present form.

Compiled and Written by Noreen Miller

______________________________________________________

February 10, 2000 

Dear Noreen, 

We decided today was the day to respond to you and write our thoughts in regard to the Christians and Sexuality material. Both of us have spent considerable time with it. About half of the book is directed in the background material to the “enlightenment” of those who are to be teaching. There is a lot of good direction given and it is well thought out. Pertaining to this section of the book as well as to the material for the youth, we were disappointed there wasn’t a stronger emphasis on sexual abstinence before marriage, and reserving the sex experience for marriage between one man and one woman.

For those who are not fully aware of what it is, our perception is, that it is a 5 session curriculum for Junior High students and their parents. They are to meet separately but some of their conclusions are to be shared with the other group. About half of the book is directed to

those who will be in the teaching situation. It is well done, thoroughly thought out. Unfortunately we were not happy with the agenda of the course which in our perception was, homosexuality is O.K. and nothing can be done about it.

1. One evening Darrell decided to watch a couple “family TV shows” in order to be better aware of what is influencing our families. He was shocked and it made him recognize the importance of sex education. We both feel that this should be done in the homes by the parents. Of course one might say “what about the youth whose parents will not be faithful to getting this done?” We emphasize this is the responsibility of the parents for their own youth. Encouragement in this direction could be a teaching direction for young parents.

2. There is an article by Alice Ogden Bellis (page 25) that refers to the Bible as “not static, but dynamic. It must continually be reinterpreted by the religious community to fit each new historical context-sometimes even to the point of doing a 180 degree turn”. We emphatically disagree with this statement. That same article (page 26) referring to homosexuality

“Biblical material condemning such practices (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10) should not be read as denunciation of the kind of monogamous homosexual bonds that exist today, but which were apparently extremely rare in Hellenistic times.” On page 27 there is a “restated” parable titled “the good homosexual” and speaks to what would, Jesus reaction be especially if it referred to a monogamous gay union rather than one that was exploitive or casual.

Also on page 27 is the statement, “the Bible should not be read as a blueprint for living so much as an architectural school where we find the tools we need to build our lives.” This article ends with “IT IS TRUE that the Bible never says anything positive about homosexuality. In spite of this, and after years of considering the matter, I have made a 180 degree turn in my understanding of the Bible on this issue. I have concluded that a positive attitude toward homosexual marriage and ordination of gay men and lesbians for the Christian ministry is not only consistent with the Scripture but mandated by it...” 

BELLIS IS WRONG.

3. The back ground article starting on page 20 by Whitehead and Whitehead delves into the sentence "The good news about sex is that sex is good". Much of this article we do not take issue with. It has a paragraph on page 24 stating. “As a religious covenant, marriage is a sign and source of God’s love. The commitments of marriage-communion, fidelity, permanence-provide a framework that can protect and purify the promises of sexual love.” No problem here. However, the next paragraph states, “Marriage is not part of every life, and the commitments of marriage are not the only context that supports the promises of love...some have never married, others are divorced or widowed. All of us - single or married, gay or straight, celibate or sexually active - look to Jesus Christ as the paradoxical instructor in the good news about sex.” We cannot support this agenda.

4. The sessions are well laid out as to how they are to be presented. The material that is actually used in the classroom relies heavily on class discussion, filling out questionnaires pertaining to their ideas (emphasizing there are no right or wrong answers). It is very specific as to body parts, terminology, sexual behavior. One session looks at “some of the slang that we use when we talk about reproduction, genitals, other body parts, and sexual activity.” Group discussion is use throughout the sessions. This particular session directs the leader “to pronounce at least some of these slang words as it comes your time in the circle” as the students are sharing with each other these slang terms.

The parents are in their own sessions and doing the same work as the young people. In later sessions, the youth are exposed to the work of the adults and vice versa.

We were certainly disappointed that there wasn’t a stronger emphasis on abstinence before marriage. The theme throughout the preparation material spoke to us that they were saying homosexuality is o.k. and nothing can be done about it. That general theme ran through it sometimes in a subtle fashion and sometimes not so subtle. At times it was flagrant.

We have spoken more strongly to the disagreements we had with the material. There is also much that we agree with. As a package we consider it unsuitable to be presenting to our United Methodist Sunday School classes.

Among other things we are not comfortable with a lot of the language used throughout the lessons. Speaking for ourselves, we would not be able to embrace it enough to teach it.

Focus on the Family material would be far better for these discussions than what is presented in these lessons.

Love in Christ, 

Darrell and Carol Needham

 ______________________________________________________

 
To:  MLRM COMMITTEE

FR: Norma Morrison

RE: Christians and Sexuality

Thank you for the opportunity to preview this material and give my input. As I read the curriculum in its entirety, I was not as disturbed as I was at Annual Conference. However, there are several things I am absolutely opposed to.

1. The Background Material.

Although this section carries the disclaimer that the reader does not need to agree with all that is written here, the implication is that this will give the leaders the tools they need to read and understand the Bible.  The first article appears to be presented objectively; the article,  “When God Makes A Way” does not. I have highlighted specifically the most blatant statements undermining the authority of scripture and twisting interpretation to promote homosexuality. The concluding opinion on p.28 of homosexual marriage and ordination of gay men and women (her terminology) is in direct opposition to the current United Methodist stance on these issues.

2. Our Sexual Attitudes Survey (p.53)

Many of these questions are inappropriate for Middle Schoolers. Most are still unfamiliar with the terminology and find it repulsive to talk about. (Page 2 states that this curriculum is designed for 6th-9th graders. Page 58 refers to question 10 in this survey saying youth will tend to think of “date rape” when they read this. Most youth at this age don’t even know what date rape is!)

3. Definitions Worksheet (p. 65)

Same response as #2. Most are unfamiliar with these terms and will learn them when it is age appropriate. Having them learn and verbally have to say vulgar slang is unacceptable in any circumstance!

4. Note to Leaders (p.71)

Leaders are now told they should use the principles from the article “When God Makes A Way” and specifically to treat scripture as “architectural tools, not a literal blueprint”.

5. What’s Ok and What’s Not OK (p. 87)

This purpose is said to give youth a chance to use the quadrilateral

relating to behavior issues. The point of Wesley’s quadrilateral is to use all

parts in every decision not choose one of the 4 to justify a desired response. If I missed the point, then the directions are not clear enough.

6. Bibliography (p. 105)

As much as I can tell from the titles and descriptions, this seems to be slanted toward a homosexual bias. Out of 17 references, 9 appear to be neutral (1,2,;6,8,11,12 ?,13,15 and 16), 4 gay-related (3,5,9 ?,17 ?), 3 pro-gay

(4,8,10) and 1 feminist anti-tradition (14).

I have 3 teenage sons so I believe I am in tune with the needs of youth in our churches and what is appropriate for their ages. In asking my 6th grader his opinion of aspects of this curriculum, I did not receive any favorable response. He especially objected to the survey, definitions worksheet, and “What’s Ok and Not OK”.

My overall opinion of the curriculum is that is misses the point of how the church could meet the needs of youth related to their sexuality. Youth need to know there are standards of

right and wrong in God’s Word and what those standards are. The decision is ultimately theirs how they act on that knowledge but as a church we owe it to them to teach them truth.

 ______________________________________________________

 
January 13, 2000

To Whom it May Concern

From Dr. Allen D. Anneberg MD, Carroll, Iowa

My Evaluation of the Christians and Sexuality Manual, produced and proposed by the Iowa Conference of UMC for use by junior high age.

The manual is absolutely unbiblical and unmedical and should be scrapped. As I retired OB-Gyn doctor and life long Methodist, I would advise one Bible believing and Holy Spirit-filled couple with junior high aged children to teach the class, based on their life experiences, the Holy Bible, and suggest a textbook by Dr. Ed Young’s book Pure Sex- three classes-1. P.97 “Where Did I Come From?” Teaching Children About Pure Sex, 2. P. 117, “But We Love Each Other”, sex and the single person, 3. P. 191, “Gay Sex, So What=s the Problem?”

In His Service

I Am Sincerely Allen D. Anneberg, M.D.

 ______________________________________________________

Noreen-- A Review of the C&S Study I Read.

There were several positive things in it; but also many things I could not agree with! This is not a study I would want any of my grandchildren exposed to. I feel these ideas have no place in our churches if we are to follow the teachings in our Bible. The ideas are derogatory to our senses and to the point of being divisive and inflammatory.

Juanita O’Toole

 ______________________________________________________

Dear Noreen,

I have read the information on Christians & Sexuality manual. I am not trained in the area of literature critic but I have raised 3 children & know without a doubt that this material is not fit to be used as it is. The standing of the Bible on its head is unbelievable. The Bible does take a stand on issues, there are rights & wrongs, there are penalties for disobedience. God is love, but God is God. We are expected to obey & there is a price to pay if we don’t. The author (Bellis) must think that what Moses brought down the mountain, carved in stone was the “10 suggestions” not the “10 commandments”. I do not believe the material should be a part of any Christian church & should not be taught in its current form. 

Sincerely,

Pat Haws

 ______________________________________________________

Paul McKinley: Lay Person

Paul has had considerable experience in youth and sexuality programs, symposiums, and workshops.

He stated that this manual is based on the “Choice” model in attempting to deal with young people and the matter of sexuality. This works on the idea of teaching them to use good judgment and attempt to make wise choices in sexual situations. It is timeworn and unsuccessful liberal, secular mind set that has proven itself to be totally ineffective. Paul said it has no research grounding and is making things progressively worse.

He believes the manual is totally unacceptable for our UMC. (His casual, follow-up remark to me was, “This is garbage!”)