×
Comments for this thread are now closed.
Sorry, the browser you are using is not currently supported. Disqus actively supports the following browsers:
This page is forcing your browser to use legacy mode, which is not compatible with Disqus. Please see our troubleshooting guide to get more information about this error.
I fail to see the problem with Rev. Cressman's lawsuit. He isn't interfering with Native Americans' practice of religion, whether they are Christian or practice their peoples' historic practices. He simply wants the same courtesy to practice his faith free of external pressure. If we have to remove representations of the Ten Commandments & Moses from courthouses, then representation of persons or themes from ANY religion should be removed from all civic institutions. No one will like it, but it will be fair across the board.
Is the pastor REQUIRED to use this license plate? Most states give dozens of choices. If not, he needs to move on and concentrate on making disciples of Jesus Christ.
No he's not. Oklahoma has about 200 other license plate choices including an "In God We Trust" license plate. I'm embarrassed as a lifelong UM member by this pastor's actions.
You can pay an extra fee for a different plate. That's part of the issue.
wow, I'm embarrassed that this pastor is a UM, great response from the conference. I don't understand how this is different from Greek mythology in art and architecture, or any other type of artistic expression (Lady Liberty) all of which can be taken to extremes.
I think the difference is that Greek mythology, to use your example, is a dead religion - i.e. no one practices or believes it anymore. Native American beliefs are still alive and being practiced across the continent. Rev. Crossman, I assume, wants to give a solidly Christian witness in all of his affairs. This particular license plate promotes, intentionally or not, Apache religious belief, which he does not adhere to himself, and he does not want to give a false impression of his beliefs. As I said, this is just my assumption, based on the article, but I don't know Rev. Crossman and can't speak for him.
I do fail to see the point of this lawsuit. Are we not supposed to be preaching, and exemplifying, a message of grace instead of intolerance? Has Cressman nothing better to do than join others in giving Christianity a black eye?
The problem with this lawsuit is the (perceived) necessity of suing because of Americans being insulted by other Americans' free exercise of religion. The SCOTUS should rule that so long as Congress doesn't try to impose a religious faith on the populace, that individual expressions of religious sayings, texts, symbols, gestures, etc. are protected by the 1st Amendment and then these lawsuits will stop. There is no reason why this license plate shouldn't exist, or one showing a Cross for that matter. Americans need to deal with the fact that this is a pluralistic society and people are free to say and to express things.
This is are an important reminder why we need Acts of Repentance, Healing and Reconciliation in the United Methodist Church. The pastor says he believes that the artistic representation represents mythology that needs to be cast off. This type of thinking is very damaging to the self-esteem and innate sense of the sacred amongst Native people. This pastor has deeply misunderstood Native people and traditions. It is unfortunate that he has chosen to litigate his opinion. Even though he does not represent the entirety of the denomination, as an identified member of our clergy covenant community and by entering the public sphere and taking his argument to court, he harms our reputation and influences others to believe we are intolerant. Many, many religious icons/symbols exist in the public sphere at museums, in architecture, in governmental buildings across our nation. They are representative of high ideals and yet, do not interfere with freedom of religious expression. If anything, the Christian Church had interfered with many other religions in this country, especially that of Native peoples. And of all places for this to happen, I would least expect it to happen in Oklahoma, a state populous with Native tribes and Native churches of every stripe. I'm saddened by this circumstance and hope he does not prevail in court.
This is one of those "just because I can" issues. Just because I can, does that mean I should? I do see the point of the lawsuit, but whether Rev. Cressman SHOULD have proceeded is another matter. I choose not to jump on the bandwagon that jumps all over him, whether I agree or not.
Come on if he doesn't want to have that license plate then get a personalized one. As far as I am concerned this is stepping over the line for a minister.
What Pastor Cressman said is true about the beliefs and practices of some of the so-called Native Americans (nobody is native to this country by the way- we all immigrated at some point). In our UMC chuch a couple of years ago they invited some "Native" American person to lead the congregation in prayer and she had us praying to her dead father who was still hanging around apparently and had us turn toward the east toward the sun just like Ezekial saw in his vision of the Temple (in secret rooms). I spoke to our pastor about this afterwards and he was not happy with her. Kudos to our church they haven't had another one of these things in several years.
As chairperson of The Board of Church & Society of The Oklahoma Conference of The United Methodist Church, and on behalf of the entire board, I offer the following response to this issue:
1. The Oklahoma Conference Board of Church & Society has historically taken positions of advocacy whenever social injustices prevent individuals and groups of individuals from achieving their full place in culture and society.
2. We support the protection of individual civil rights that include expressions of religious liberty and freedom of speech.
3. These recent civil actions by an ordained elder of The
Oklahoma Conference of The United Methodist Church have
become widely public, and have brought to our Conference, to
The United Methodist Church, and to the church universal publicity that
we believe is generally perceived to be negative and adverse to our
denominational mission as United Methodists to "make disciples of
Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.
--(http://newsok.com/appeals-cour...
4. Though we hold to an individual's rights to protect those rights from impingement of freedom of speech, or infringement upon religious liberty, we also hold that ordained persons are subject to a higher calling to work toward unity as described by Jesus of Nazareth in John 17, and not to act in ways that are divisive, excluding, and in ways that do nothing to forward the work of the kingdom of God.
We hold that legal actions that lead only to Pyrrhic victories for individuals but bring untold cost to the greater causes of the church and the salvific work of God in our world should be avoided.
5. We are proud of the particularly strong presence of Native American culture here in Oklahoma and rejoice that the first presence of Methodist Christians in Oklahoma was within the Native American peoples, long before there was a presence of Methodist Christians among those who settled these lands later. We rejoice in the presence of our brothers and sisters within the Oklahoma Indian Missionary Conference and stand in solidarity with them whenever prejudices and social injustice negatively impacts their cultures and ways of life.
6. Citing the current Book of Resolutions of The United
Methodist Church, this Board agrees that "The United Methodist Church
has officially recognized that "many Native traditions were
erroneously feared, rather than understood as vehicles for the grace
of God" and that "such fears have resulted in persecution of traditional
Native peoples and Native Christians" and that "many traditions
have been misinterpreted as sin, rather than varying cultural
expressions leading to a deeper understanding of our creator." The
United Methodist Church, at the highest level, "affirms the
sacredness of Native people, their languages, their cultures, and their
gifts to the church and the world" and honors "as sacred those
practices that: call us back to the sacredness of Native people;
affirm as beautiful their identity among the world's peoples; lead us
into right relationship with our Creator, creation, and those
around us; and call us into holy living. We call upon...the United
Methodist Church and the people of the UMC to receive the gifts of
Native people as people of God."
--UMC Resolution #3334, adopted 2004, readopted 2012
7. We support the wise and grace-filled perspectives offered by
Rev. David Wilson, Conference Superintendent of The Oklahoma Indian
Missionary Conference in response to this issue.
--http://indiancountrytodaymedia... plate-lawsuit-149995
8. We support and advocate for open discussion and cultural education of those persons among the clergy and the laity whose prejudices and misunderstandings and insensitivities separate any among us from the communion of any cultures and all peoples who were all created by God Who Is Love.
9. We especially call upon all United Methodists to remember and abide by John Wesley's historical counsel to us all:
"It is expected of all who continue herein that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation,
First:
By doing no harm, by avoiding evil of every kind, especially that which
is most generally practiced...Fighting, quarreling,
brawling, brother going to law with
brother...
Secondly: By doing good, by being in every kind merciful after their power; as they have opportunity, doing good of every possible sort, and, as far as possible, to all men...
Thirdly: By attending upon all the ordinance of God..."
--The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, 2012, pp 76-77
10. We pray for a peaceful resolution to this issue outside any and all Courts of Law and implore all parties, and each of us to lead with grace, to do acts of mercy and justice, to walk with spiritual integrity, to serve each other and our fallen world with the humility of Christ, and to journey submissively in creative partnership with God who beckons to lead us on paths of righteousness.
Graciously submitted,
Rev. Mark T. Whitley
Senior Minister
Verdigris United Methodist Church
Verdigris, OK
As I read your statement, it appears you gathered information from The Rev David Wilson, the Book of Discipline, press releases and possibly some other sources. You make some strong negative statements about Crossman. Did you talk to Crossman at all to find out what he might have to say? He is quoted in the article to say something like it is a mistake to interpret the lawsuit as an attack on Native American culture. I would like to know why he thinks that, especially before releasing such a statement on behalf of a conference Board.
Paul,
thanks for your response and inquiry.
As I see part of our responsibility and role as current Chairperson
of our Conference Board of Church & Society, ours is primarily the
work of advocacy. The difficult challenge is walking the fine line
between active advocacy and what appears to be either frank or insidious
antagonism. Our Board's response, of which I am the primary author,
was crafted over several days; it had the review of our board, and also
had the input of some of its members. In the response I really tried
diligently to speak from a place of advocacy
rather than antagonism.
Rev. Cressman is an ordained elder in my conference and as a colleague and partner in ministry, he is due certain respect and honor for his role as a spiritual leader of a faith community, serving under appointment of our bishop. I had no desire or intent to personally state anything that could be perceived as a personal attack on Rev. Cressman or that could be perceived as undermining his ministry, which in The United Methodist Church is a chargeable offense.
None of the comments were directed at Rev. Cressman personally, but rather, at
least as was my intention, were directed to the process and venue he chose to
voice his concerns.
Some of my comments were of direct advocacy on behalf of our Native
American brothers and sisters, especially those here in Oklahoma who are
members of our sister conference, The Oklahoma Indian Missionary
Conference. Rev. David Wilson is the superintendent of that Conference.
And, yes, there were conversations between
Rev. Wilson and I as we discussed whether there was any particular role at all for
this
Board to take in this issue. I know Rev. Wilson personally; he is a
wise and gifted servant of Jesus Christ. I sought his counsel directly
because I wanted to be as sure as I could, that any response from our
Board would be seen as helpful rather than distracting or hurtful. Rev.
Wilson saw the draft of our Board's response before it was
presented publicly. He has been supportive of our talking points and has stated so in a public forum.
Some of the talking points were also directed at attempting to mitigate some of the unintended consequences of this civil action which is bringing what many believe is unnecessary negative publicity to the church universal, in general, and to The United Methodist Church, more specifically - especially here in Oklahoma.
Because of the nature of the issue, and specifically because this issue is in the public arena, a final draft of the Church & Society response was forwarded to the office of our Bishop, Robert E. Hayes, Jr. for comments, suggestions, and for input on whether or not our Board should offer any response at all. We received no negative comments from the Bishop's office, nor were there instructions to remain silent.
Were there attempts to reach Rev. Cressman directly? No, there were not. Should
there
have been? Perhaps. I chose not to, precisely because I did not want
this to be perceived as directly and personally antagonistic. He chose a
public forum, our courts of law to voice his concerns. Most of the
communication about this issue has come from the attorneys representing
Rev. Cressman, rather than Rev. Cressman directly. Because this was
initiated in the public forum, I responded in the public forum.
Part of my intent in our response, and I think it is the most important point of all, is that as representatives of Christ's church, we have a "higher calling" and that we should be working for unity and inclusiveness rather than disunity and divisiveness. Rev. Cressman chose our courts of law to resolve his conflict - a forum which Jesus himself, and John Wesley, the father of the Methodist movement, suggest quite strongly should be the court of last resort, rather than the court of first resort.
It seems apparent that Rev. Cressman chose this process unilaterally, without notification to our bishop about his intent. As quoted in the article above, Bishop Robert Hayes Jr., the episcopal leader for both Oklahoma conferences provided this response:
“I find it troubling and disturbing that one of our pastors would find this symbol offensive,” Hayes said. “I wish Rev. Cressman could have said something to me so that I could have entered into some dialogue with him and some of my Native American brothers and sisters who could have explained the symbol. I view it as a distraction to the ongoing healing relationships.”
But also, as Bishop Hayes offers at the end of the article regarding this legal case, “Once it is dealt with, we will go on with our lives, we will go on with ministry and we will go on with the work of the church.”
And that is certainly our intent as well. This will be resolved in our courts of law unless Rev. Cressman drops the case. Resolution will happen; life will go on. I do not believe it is the role of this Board to speak out in every perceived case of injustice. I do believe, as was made evident by the support of the clergy and laity who serve on this board, that this was not a circumstance in which it was best to remain silent.
Paul, you raise a good point at the end of your reply. Have you yourself contacted
Rev.
Cressman for additional information about why he thinks it is a
"mistake" to characterize his lawsuit as "not an attack on Native
American religion, culture or belief?"
I hope this clarifies the intent and the process which guided our
Board's response. As I stated earlier, I am learning as the new
chairperson of this Board, that it is a very
fine line between
advocacy and antagonism. If I crossed beyond advocacy to antagonism in
any way, it was not by intent and was not done so with malice.
Having said that, I remain supportive of our Board's response and stand behind the spirit with which it was offered, even if the words themselves could have been more carefully crafted.
Bidding you the peace and grace of Christ Jesus,
Rev. Mark Whitley
I think with all the other real issues that need energy , attention and prayers this is a waste of valuable time.
You know the tag is representation of
what Oklahoma was meant to be a Native American state, I am pretty sure
this issue seems pretty racist due to the fact that our beliefs are once
again be construed as superstitions.
Our people have always
believed in God and for this person to speak as if he going to bring
salvation to our people through explaining how the gospel compares to
what we do.
Again I believe the issue is a little more than just a
tag and as for the discipline of the Methodist church who cares
whether his statements were ok with it, it's not the discipline he is
speaking of, he is talking about my people.
I assuming God is white after all according to him..
So sounds like we have really step
backwards, I am assuming I can say this. I happen to be one of those
who has these beliefs which I have never considered as myths, if he
would stop and think for a moment we could have said the same for
Christianity. I just wonder if he ever considered why God created us as
we are an why it is we have the beliefs we do.
Unfortunately this
really hits a sore spot with me, being a former pastor of the OIMC I sat
on the committee that sent the resolutions to general conference on
Native American religion rights.
I do certainly feel this has
nothing to do with the church and he stepped out as an individual that
has spoken out against the Native American Community.
To say he has
to help us shake off the beliefs in myths has also taken it further than
just a tag issue. He has spoke out against what he call myths things we
have held sacred for thousands of years.
I will stop as not to place myself in his position as I am still accountable to the one I serve.
This is another example of what's wrong with Christianity in our country and why droves of people will have nothing to do with it (& I sympathize with them). I believe the apostle Paul would have found a way to use the license plate to further the gospel rather than damage it.
Brother Cressman seems to presume that he can identify "myths" and separate them from "real faith practices." When an Apache shoots a blessed arrow into the sky as a prayer for rain, apparently Rev. Cressman does not accept the concept of praying for rain, which happens in United Methodist churches rather frequently, although mostly minus the sacredly blessed arrow. I ask him to consider dropping his lawsuit, getting a different license plate and realizing that Christians "do church" and express faith in many ways. Some pastors bless the Communion or Eucharist elements facing the congregation, some do so with their backs to the congregation and others do so in a room separate from and long before the people are present. In some Native (American Indian, First Nation, choose your label) churches the elements are consecrated with sage or cedar smoke. Whatever the method, God through the Holy Spirit consecrates the elements; we see lives changed after partaking. But, to a non-Christian, who does not follow the lives of the communicants, the practice of consecration and even partaking may be seen as "superstition." There are more "Indian" Christians than not, despite what the church has done to The People over history. A license plate is not going to turn someone from Christianity. However, an intolerant lawsuit will not turn that person to Christ. I pray that Brother Cressman will have his "heart strangely warmed" and that he will come to be able to say to those different from himself, in whatever way, as John Wesley is purported to have said to a priest with whom he had argued from years, "If thy heart is like my heart, give me thy hand." God made us all different, brother, and yet prevenient grace abounds. Please, share not your prejudices, but God's grace through the love of Jesus the Christ.
If it the symbol was a christmas tree, would Rev. Cressman sue? Do you know how many pagan symbols and rituals are used in Christianity? Is he offended by any of those? Is this the only OK license plate with a symbol of some other religion? And how does the symbol on a license plate violate his religious liberty? Is he being forced to buy the plate? Forced to believe the story behind the symbol? I'm sure there are thousands of offending images around Cressman everyday. Is he going to sue because of each one? Why this one in particular? Very odd.
It appears that Rev. Cressman doesn't believe that God is omnipotent. Surely if he did, he would recognize that God can work through any media, including an arrow shot in the air to bring rain in order to provide for the people of God. I believe that he really needs to concentrate more on fulfilling the Great Commission rather than trying to be The Judge, which is, after all, one of God's roles and God is far better at it than we are!
The Prophet Elijah said, "If the Lord is God, follow him, but if it be Baal, then follow him." Whom are we following in this case? Baal lost the battle for supremacy in Elijah's day, but modern times and liberal churches are certainly giving Baal multiple victories in every circumstance.
This kind of petty legalistic religious intolerance should not be tolerated! This pastor should get offended about something important, like hymns with male pronouns and "Jesus is my boyfriend" music, people eating meat and drinking non fair trade coffee from styrofoam cups at church functions, churches with an American flag in the sanctuary. Things like that.
Rev. Cressman and Christians in general
have been able to freely practice and express their faith in The U.S.
for generations. He may be entitled to exercise his "unearned" right to
express his opinion; however, as an ordained elder of The UMC, he is
called to demonstrate and engage in behavior/practice that garners
greater understanding and respect. His choice to forego a conversation
and pursue a public, legal venue on the coattails of 2012 General
Conference Act of Repentance service is yet another reminder of WHY we
need to continue addressing the sin of intolerance and .... RACISM...in
the church and in the world. BTW - Native Americans did not receive
religious freedom in this country until 1978. Destruction of sacred
sites and assumption/misappropriation of our sacred ceremonies continues
and when we protest we're frequently admonished with, "That's all in
the past; forgive and forget it." As a Kiowa woman and a cradle
Methodist - I know the common ground shared by both my cultural and
religious inheritance and I am proud to embrace the fullness of what the
Creator has given me.
I'm curious to see whether this opportunity to challenge and to engage will be seized or not.
While Rev. Cressman's lawsuit may be a little over the top, his point is valid. The standard license plate for any state should not endorse any one particular religion, not even Christianity. For this he is being condemned by the politically correct crowd. And many below seem very eager to jump on the bandwagon. If we are going to be truly tolerant, we must be tolerant of all viewpoints, including those we do not like. The opposition to this basic truth is so widespread today that it is reflected in this very one-sided article. While I could intuit Cressman's argument, I could not discern it directly from the article. Instead, I had to wait for a link to the Center for Religious Expression in the thirteenth paragraph to read elsewhere what the point of the lawsuit was all about. This article is incomplete and extremely biased.
Maybe I am missing something here, but it looks like Crossman is making a case for separation of church and state. It appears the state picked a picture of someone praying, right? Then they require people to attach the picture to their private property, a car, right? If you don't want the religious symbol on your property you have to pay an additional fee/tax for the ability to not display the religious picture the state picked out. He might have better luck if the symbol had some religious significance other than Native American, but doesn't he have a point? Do you want the state selecting religious pictures and making you post them on your personal property?
Sculpture is an artistic statement. Messages are in the eye of the beholder. Rain is sacred, especially in OK and the west. Seems this man likes the publicity and law suits. Let's all pitch in and get the "God" plate for the guy and make him happy. It's only $18.
I am disappointed that a Methodist pastor is pursuing this. As a former student of Alan Houser , friend, Methodist , and Cherokee Sculptor, I feel an inquiry as to the concept of the artist to understand his representation of the sculptor would have been more appropriate. I am honored and blessed to have called Alan Houser my friend. Eddie Morrison Tahlequah, Oklahoma
I am not surprised at this. We as Indigenous Peoples have a hard time being a part of this country. We are the first people of this land. We are not immigrants from another place. I would hope we would get pass being only good as a mascot for a sports team or the name of a vehicle. Here is an opportunity to recognize us in art.
Art is art and I would hope people will see this art depicting a human (native-nonnative) giving his skill (the strength to shoot an arrow to the sky to bring rain) to all that are on the earth (humans, animals, plants and the earth). Oklahoma has gone through a lot through these past months and people have given of themselves to make life better for others. I see this as the state of Oklahoma shooting its needs to God and asking God to shower all the people of Oklahoma with gifts and graces. Art is Art and we see Art from our own view, I would hope people will see this as a relationship builder and not a divider.
From my perspective, I seriously doubt that the license plate is any way attempting to proselytize people to a particular religion. Its intent is to recognize a community of people that has contributed a great deal to our common history and life in Oklahoma and the United States as a whole. Intellectually, I understand Rev. Cressman's point, but it for me it pale's in the light of more fundamental issues of faith and relationships.
Perhaps some readers may find it hard to understand why so many United Methodists, native and non-native, are dismayed by this lawsuit and especially that it is being put forth by a United Methodist leader. We, as an entire denomination, are taking a hard look at the church's role in the harm suffered by native peoples over many generations. We have made a serious pledge of reconciliation to take steps to heal the broken relationships caused by the damage done. We cannot develop relationships of mutual care and value longed for without a commitment to consistently do what heals, to take accountability for what has happened, and with God's guidance to experience a renewal of our minds and practices so our actions follow the way of love that is so core to our faith.
Many of us are choosing to delve deeper and learn what was left out of our public school educations about what happened to Native Americans as our ancestors migrated across the continent to settle and our religious institutions expanded. Very systematic strategies were employed to undermine and conquer those already living on the land. The strategies were not just military. They included the promulgation of ideas that paved the way to take over the continent. One of these concepts was "Manifest Destiny", which essentially was the belief that God intended the take over of the continent in order to establish a new Christian nation.
The general acceptance of this notion was part of what fueled the expansion and the wars that happened. In the midst of it all, Native People's suffered enormously. Many were displaced from their homelands in order for settlers to move in and take over prime locations, resources, river ways, etc. Many treaties and agreements with Native Americans signed by the government and agreed to by community leaders were broken over and over again. Children were actually taken from their parents and sent to boarding schools (many of them operated by faith based groups) where they were intentionally stripped of their culture, religion, and contact with their families. They were punished for even speaking their native language. All this was to undermine the spirit and way of life of Native Peoples. On top of this, some individuals who were leaders within the Methodist Church even participated in massacres of native women and children - The Massacre at Sand Creek being a prime example. All this was part of a broader effort to undermine Native peoples and create a long standing prejudice that made it easier for people to engage in the conquest of North America.
The lawsuit comes in the midst of this time of sincere reflection,
repentance and healing happening in our relationship with Native People
as United Methodists. It opens old wounds, and whether directly
intended or not, adds to the pain and hinders progress in
reconciliation. Ideas like - "As a Christian pastor called to ministry
in an area steeped in Native
American tradition, he frequently encounters individuals who cling to
these beliefs, and he tries to convince them to cast off myths and
accept the truth of the gospel.” - sound eerily reminiscent of the understandings that fueled earlier harm.
I rarely post comments to articles, but in this case I felt it was important not to remain silent. As a pastor and leader within the United Methodist Church, it is important to point out these deeper issues. I believe following Jesus includes the recognition that God can bring Good News and wisdom through other faith traditions. From my perspective, this humility is essential to reconciliation and healing which is underway. "Freedom of Speech" cannot mean we ignore the greater freedom of our faith - "The Freedom to Love God and Our Neighbor as We Love Ourselves." That is the path I see.
Nicely stated, Kevin. Are you the same Kevin Will associated with the GBOD Camp and Retreat Ministries?
Rev. Mark Whitley
Chairperson, The Oklahoma Conference Board of Church & Society
circuitrider03@yahoo.com
Hi Mark - Yes, I am but I want to be clear that these reflections are my own personal contributions to the dialogue, and I am not speaking on behalf of the General Board of Discipleship
I understand, Keith.
Thanks, and blessings on your ministry.
Rev. Mark Whitley
Rev. Cressman doesn't want elements of Apache myth to be spread around. Is he suggesting that the Judaic-Christian tradition is devoid of mythology (stories that didn't really happen but still provide meaning and truth)? If so, he is sadly, and if his action is any indication, arrogantly wrong.
Bottom-line: The state "requires" citizens to pay registration fees and place a license plate on their vehicle. The standard plate they "direct" be placed on the "personally owned" vehicle happens to conflict with someone's personal beliefs. Each individual citizen has the right to not advertise something they disagree with. Since they are "directing" him to place the license plate on his vehicle, they should offer alternative plates he can choose from that do not conflict with his personal beliefs. He should NOT be charged one cent to exercise his first amendment right. Personally, I have no problem with the plate, but that doesn't matter...what matters is they are forcing him to pay $18 to not have to place something on "his" personal property that he disagrees with.
