Dr.

Joseph Bishman
District Superintendent
Shawnee Valley District
West Ohio Conference
United Methodist Church

Dear Joseph,

You may recall that I sent you an earlier letter, dated June 16th, regarding the
election of Bill Brownson as CFO of the WOC-UMC, in which I said in part:

On Monday, June 7th, 2010, Mr. Bill Brownson, a self-described

practicing homosexual, was elected Chief Financial Officer of the West
Ohio Conference of the United Methodist Church. His candidacy was
supported and promoted by Bruce Ough, bishop of the West Ohio
Conference. Although Bishop Ough correctly quoted the UMC’s Social
Principles in his statement “the practice of homosexuality is
incompatible with Christian teachings (Para. 161F)”, he
nevertheless issued a pastoral letter with a clear statement that he
“support[s] Bill's nomination”. It is clear that Bishop Ough
purposely disregarded the teaching of the UMC regarding the practice
of homosexuality. Bishop Ough has … disqualified himself to be bishop
within the UMC ... NO CHRISTIAN should feel any obligation to follow
his misguided attempts at leadership.

Now it’s your turn for criticism. The purpose of this letter is to protest your handling
of the June 28th meeting which I and many others understood to be an opportunity
for members of the Shawnee Valley District to voice our concerns and to formulate
a collective action to oppose Mr. Brownson’s election. That understanding – that we
would have an opportunity to air our grievances and to formulate a collective
response – was predicated upon your announcement in the regular SHV “Keeping
You Informed” message which went out for the week of June 20th and which stated
that “District Superintendant, Jospeh (sic) Bishman will lead a discussion and would like to gain a
sense of response within the district so he can best represent you in Cabinet and to the Bishop. “

In reviewing my notes from that meeting, the following are some of the problems I
found with your handling of that meeting:

1. You began the meeting with a lengthy explanation that you did not need the
DS job, you had sufficient investments to live on, you were nearing the end of
your term as DS, etc. Further, you stated that you would not participate in or
countenance a rebellion against the WOC, nor would you convey any letters
or petitions to the bishop, etc. Yet you claimed to be pastor to us all.
Interesting. It seems to me that a good leader would have been more
 invested in the concerns of his constituents than in the interests of his
bosses. You failed to support us, your flock.

2. You told us, several times, that we were not all in agreement about this
homosexual thing. But how would you know? While we were in large group
session you never asked for or permitted a simple large group vote such as:
“how many of you are opposed to the hiring of a practicing homosexual as
CFO?” Even when we were broken into small groups you did not ask how
many of us opposed the election enough to take action. It would have been
a simple matter to find out what percentage of church representatives in
attendance were opposed to the election. Perhaps you, or the bishop, didn’t
really want to know the answer to that question?

3. The format of the meeting – breaking into eight small groups for discussion
of the questions you provided – appeared on the surface to be a means to
more efficient discussion, but I believe that dividing us into small groups
served a more deceitful purpose: we were never allowed to vote, and speak,
as a group representing the entire district. Further, we were never allowed to
formulate a district-wide response to the conference election. It seems to me
that you deliberately kept us fragmented in order to diffuse our anger and
prevent a collective response.

4. The questions you presented to us for discussion were all rather pointless
“feel good” types of questions. That is, they did not scratch where we itched.
Further, they were all from a “damage control” organization-maintaining
perspective:

a. Question 1 – “What kind of hurt or pain are you experiencing? How are
you dealing with it?” – this is a Feel Good type of question that does
not really get to the facts of an issue. It permits people to vent, but to
what point? It never asks “what do you want to do about it?”
b. Question 2 – “What issues or questions need to be discussed regarding
the hiring of Mr. Brownson?” -- a little too late for that kind of
question, don’t you think? I believe that most of us assembled at the
meeting were more interested in asking “What can we do about it now
that Mr. Brownson has been elected? How can we address this
egregious moral and doctrinal lapse on the part of conference
leadership?”
c. Question 3 – “How do you think we as Christians should behave
regarding this issue?” -- this was another skillfully-worded question
that ALMOST sounds like what we really wanted to ask: (i.e., How do
you think we as Christians should RESPOND regarding this issue?). The
overt implication of this question is to remind us to “turn the other
cheek” and be good little Christians. But the deeper, more covert,
implication in the question is that, now that the damage is done (a
homosexual is elected), the burden for “proper behavior” lies solely
 upon us, the injured ones. Where was the requirement for proper
behavior and orthodoxy while the Finance Committee was meeting,
and when the election was held?

How we should behave now seems clear to me: we who believe that
homosexuality has no place in the leadership of the church should
stand up and be counted. I do not want a practicing homosexual as
Treasurer/CFO; I do not want a practicing adulterer to teach Bible
Study; I do not want a practicing liar/gossiper to teach Sunday School; I
do not want someone living an intemperate gluttonous lifestyle to lead
the choir – in short, no unrepentant sinner should be placed in
any position of leadership within the church. We are all sinners,
and no particular sin is worse than other sin – it is the unrepentant
aspect which is the focus of the current issue. One of the things
Christians are called to do with the Body is to police our own behaviors
(Matt. 18:15; Gal. 6:1; 2 Thess. 3:15; James 5:19; Heb. 10:29; etc.).
Mr. Brownson should be asked to repent, or failing that, to resign.

Perhaps your question would have been more effective if it had been
directed at Mr. Brownson: “Bill, now that you have been elected as
Treasurer/CFO, the third-highest office within WOC, how should you
behave?” Wonder what his answer would have been?

d. Question 4 – “When people say they are leaving the Church, how are
you coaching them; to leave or to stay?” – this question was designed
to make us all think like a DS is supposed to think: “How can I keep
this rabble together?”. It has the impact of equating membership in
the UMC as being of equal importance with Biblically sound doctrine.
And it is dead wrong. Our first priority must be to seek and save the
lost. Our second priority should be to disciple those who are saved,
and last time I looked in the Bible there was no requirement for church
membership in any particular denomination in order to follow Jesus
Christ. Becoming part of the Body of Christ and learning what we may
be good for within that Body have nothing to do with formal church
membership in any denomination. At some point down the road, after
we have done all we can to fulfill priorities 1 & 2, then perhaps it
becomes appropriate to see what benefits we can derive from
commonalities in worship and service (i.e., church membership), but it
is certainly NOT the highest priority. This question was only important
to you and the conference leadership, not to any of us.
5. I think a better set of questions to ask in small group session would have
been:

a. “How many of you believe that it is Biblically unacceptable for the UMC
to elect a self-avowed practicing and unrepentant homosexual as a
member of its leadership?” (If I were the DS I would think it my duty to
actually find out what percentage of churches on my watch opposed
the conference action. Simply saying “there are folks among you,
even within your churches, who do not agree with you on this issue” is
non-productive at best, misleading at worst.)
b. (Assuming that the majority of attendees present at the meeting on
June 28th felt that the UMC should NOT have homosexuals in its
leadership): “How many of you feel strongly enough about this issue
that your local church must take some action in response to the
Conference election of a homosexual?” (Again, as DS I would want to
gauge the strength of the majority’s convictions so I could report that
to conference: “you really need to pay attention to these people; they
mean business”)
c. (Assuming that the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are strongly positive
[that is, that we strongly do not agree with Conference’s position]):
“What suggestions do you have in terms of formulating a response to
Conference regarding this issue?”

d. Once the suggestions have been collected and organized into

thoughtful options, then this question is appropriate: “Which of these
options shall We, as a District, present to Conference as our Collective
Response?”
e. (Then finally) “Now that we have formulated a Response, acceptable
to the majority of those assembled here now, how can we begin a
healing process within this District for all of us, regardless of which side
of the issue you are on?” This would have been the most important
question of all. Why did you ignore it?

6. You may recall that during the meeting of June 28th I stood and recapped
what you had said earlier in the meeting, viz. “writing letters to the bishop
would do no good (in terms of opposing the election)” and “signing petitions
will do no good”. I then asked you what you would recommend to us as a
viable course of action, and your only answers were that you (1) did not want
us to quit Methodism and (2) that you wanted us to keep paying 100% of our
apportionments (redirected away from the “Administration” budget item if we
so choose). Your answers were not helpful at all, and in fact you sounded like
someone simply trying to please his masters rather than someone who was
as offended by the conference election as we were. I gave you a perfect
opportunity to offer real leadership to a distressed group of believers; you
should have shown more concern for our distress than for the worries of the
bishop.
7. Your announcement in the regular SHV “Keeping You Informed” message
which went out for the week of June 20th stated that “District Superintendant,
Jospeh (copied with spelling errors intact) Bishman will lead a discussion and would like to
gain a sense of response within the district so he can best represent you in Cabinet and to the
Bishop.“ Just what “sense of response” did you gain from that meeting? We
haven’t heard another word from you about that meeting or what happened
when you supposedly carried our concerns to the bishop. Do you have any
plans to share further information with the rest of us?

8. There are many questions we would like to ask since the answers might
inform and clarify our own decisions:

a. Just how many churches/church representatives within SHV are

distressed to some degree about this election? What percentage of us
oppose that election?

b. How many individuals or churches within SHV are completely

withholding all apportionments as a result of the election?

c. How many individuals or churches within SHV are redirecting

apportionments away from the “Administration” budget item?

d. How many individuals or churches within SHV are withdrawing from

membership within the UMC?

e. Did other districts within West Ohio Conference hold meetings similar
to our June 28th meeting? What were the outcomes of those meetings?
What percentage of the other districts oppose the election of Mr.
Brownson? What are churches in the other districts doing to voice
their concerns?

f. Did you actually carry our concerns to the bishop/cabinet? What was
the response?

g. Why have we not heard anything further from you regarding this
divisive issue? This is a HUGE issue. People are leaving the UMC in
search of other church homes. Doesn’t anybody care about that?
Surely this disruption warrants a more complete sharing of information.

9. You did state during the June 28th meeting that individuals and whole
churches may leave United Methodism and you gave a brief summary of
proper steps for doing so. And I note that you have scheduled a meeting for
September 19th to discuss the withdrawal process with churches interested in
withdrawing from membership in WOC-UMC. I commend you for that.

10.There are a few relatively simple solutions for resolving this divisive issue:
 a. Mr. Brownson, if he truly believes himself to be Christian, and
recognizing that Christians should give way to one another for the
common good (Rom. 12:10; 1 Cor. 12:25; Phil. 2:3; etc.), he
could/should recognize the extent of the damage his election is
causing to WOC, and he could resign his post.

b. Or the WOC leadership could fire him as being Biblically and doctrinally
unsuited for his post. But that would require guts and orthodox
thinking on the part of Conference leadership, both of which seem
rather unlikely.

c. Alternatively, the bishop/cabinet could recognize the extent of the

damage being caused by this election and they could set Mr. Brownson
aside (continuing to pay his salary for the duration of his term) and
could hire a temporary replacement (a person more acceptable to the
conservatives among us) to complete his term. I believe that many of
us would be willing to give extra, over and above our current
apportionments, to pay for a replacement CFO’s salary.

d. As regards the collective will of the people of Shawnee Valley District,

you could call another district-wide meeting for the purpose of airing
our concerns and formulating a collective response which reflects the
majority opinion, AND instead of your telling us what you will and will
not do, you can listen to us and carry our concerns back to the
conference leadership.

In summary, my view of the June 28th meeting is that you acted like a mid-level
functionary trying to keep his fiefdom from crumbling around him by herding the
rabble rousers back into line. I’m not sure how much input you had on the format of
the June 28th meeting, but I suspect that the questions you supplied to us as well as
the format for the meeting (small group session to diffuse our anger) were dictated
to you by someone very smart at the conference level . I can’t speak for anyone
else who attended that meeting but frankly I feel abused and violated by the way it
transpired. You came across to me as a “company man” whose only real concern
was to follow the instructions of his bosses.

I, along with other thoughtful Christians, am aware that Church history has been
filled down through the ages with doctrinal disputes, organizational and
jurisdictional wranglings, and numerous Machiavellian conspiracies and power
struggles as one or more “Christians” attempted to claw their way to ascendancy
over their siblings. I view this current divisive issue as just another in a long line of
such abuses. The action of WOC in electing Mr. Brownson to the position of CFO is, I
believe, the first crack in the dam for the UMC. Since the homosexual community
(and Muslims, for that matter) have been pushing hard for acceptance and inclusion
in all areas of life during the last few decades it seems likely that other cracks will
continue to appear until the time comes when the UMC actively endorses
homosexual behavior as normative and natural and wholesome: “Open hearts and
open minds” (the current UMC media campaign) – don’t look now, but I think the
other cracks are already appearing.

Let me be clear about where I stand on this current divisive issue: I believe that the
practice of homosexuality is a sin, not so much because it involves sexual behavior
(after all, God created sex for a number of purposes and called it good), but
because it is a perversion of something God created for good. There are not many
things which God Himself calls an abomination, but homosexuality is one of them
(Leviticus 18 and 20, and Romans 1, among others). ANY perversion of something
God has created is an abomination to Him, and should be to us also. If the UMC is
going to permit, accept or otherwise say that it is OK to have homosexuals in
positions of leadership within the denomination, then I want no part of the UMC. I
would feel exactly the same way if the UMC said it was OK for practicing
unrepentant adulterers, or thieves, or liars, or murderers (are you getting the
picture here?) or any other egregious behavior to be placed in a position of
leadership – they are all sin – and unrepentant sinners have no business being
placed in positions of leadership within the Church.

This issue is particularly painful for me, not only because the UMC is shifting its
historic doctrinal stance with regard to homosexuality, but because of how I must
respond to the UMC’s error: If the WOC-UMC does not show some sign that it
is seriously reconsidering, by December 31st of this year, its election of a
practicing self-avowed homosexual as Treasurer and CFO, then I must
withdraw my membership from the UMC and look for a church home
elsewhere. This will be costly for me (and others): I am currently organist for three
UMC churches, and I am the Bible teacher at one of those churches. Among those
churches is one (previously E.U.B) where I grew up as a child, where I became a
Christian, where I joined the Church, where I later served as YF president and later
still, as district YF president, and where I have preached and taught and played and
sung many times over the last few decades.

I am fully persuaded that a liberal contingent at the conference level and above
schemed and conspired for months to produce the election results. Unless you can
find a way to actually LISTEN to our concerns and faithfully report them to the
bishop then I must conclude that you are complicit in the back-room dealings which
led to the election, which frankly I view as tantamount to crawling into bed with the
homosexual agenda right alongside Bishop Ough.

Joseph, I urge you to schedule another district-wide meeting at which you may
listen to our concerns, rather than telling us what you will and will not do.
May God Almighty speak to your heart, and to mine, indeed to all our hearts in true
healing,

Jerry Massie

Bible teacher, Organist, Lay speaker