A Response to a Response

We are exactly one year away from General Conference. If you're reading this, you probably know the elephant in the room will be the UMC's position on all the issues surrounding human sexuality. Jeremy Smith gave a nice summary of eight options back in February. To that list we can now add the Connectional Table's proposal (legislation not yet released), which sounds similar to A Way Forward from Hamilton and Slaughter. It's also important to acknowledge that keeping the status quo is also a very possible outcome. A lot can change over the next 12 months, but at this point I'm hearing three possibilities mentioned most often:

1. No change in policy and possibly "mandatory sentences" for offenders. This seems to me the most likely outcome given our history of not accomplishing much.

2. Christopher Ritter's Jurisdictional Solution. There are two different versions of this. Several on the right have either publicly or privately endorsed it. You can read my critique here. Bottom line: I appreciate Christopher's commitment to keeping the denomination together. He and others have put a tremendous amount of work into this. But it feels very much like a separation before the divorce.

3. A Way Forward, recently restated by Adam Hamilton. The more I have thought about Adam's proposal the more similar I think it is to what the Connectional Table reportedly will be releasing and to my own proposed legislation, which the Great Plains Conference will be voting on.

Christopher Ritter has released a new critique of the third option. So I guess this is a critique of a critique. Below I've pulled quotes from his post that I want to specifically address.

"Because of the authority granted to clergy at ordination, it is doubtful that a simple local church wedding policy could prevent a pastor from conducting same-sex weddings at the altar of a church to whom she/he was duly appointed by the bishop."

A Way Forward would make same gender weddings a matter of local church approval. At a surface level, Chris is correct. But let's go a little deeper. A congregation may not approve of two people living together being married in the building. A pastor has the authority to choose to marry those people. A congregation may not approve of a couple with a child born out of wedlock being married. A pastor has the authority to choose whether to marry them. In fact, a pastor currently has the right to marry a couple who are admittedly and unrepentently involved in serial affairs whether the congregation approves or not. Chris says this plan "severely dis-empowers" the laity. This is incorrect. It gives the laity the same rights that they have as it relates to any other wedding, and it gives the pastor the same rights as it relates to any other wedding.

"Hamilton’s plan also fails to touch upon the issue of open itineracy.  If a practicing homosexual is a clergy in good standing, they are entitled to an appointment by the bishop and appoint-able, at least in principle, anywhere in the conference."

We don't have truly open itineracy now. If Adam Hamilton, a member of the Conference I'm in, were to resign today I am under no illusion that I could successfully be appointed to COR. In principle, I could be appointed there. In practice I can't. But that's OK because there are other people who can be. Having "practicing homosexual" clergy (or, more accurately, having lgbt clergy who are able to be open about their sexuality) and having clergy willing to perform same gender marriage will make appointments more difficult. But bishops already have to screen clergy for theological and other issues prior to appointment.

"Pastors that agree with church teaching would like to serve knowing they will be followed by someone who likewise will uphold UM positions."

There are more significant theological issues than this one that my predecessors or successors have disagreed with me about.

"Many of my concerns about “the local option”, however, are centered on concerns of a pastoral nature.  Pastoral relationships are at risk if it is known by a couple that a pastor could perform a ceremony but will not.  Pastors would lose the option of saying, “I am not allowed to do that because of the covenant under which I live, but I would still love to be your pastor.”  When a clergy says “no”, it would seem like personal rejection."

I appreciate this perspective. Interestingly, though, it is in part a pastoral concern that has moved me further to the left on this. I pastor a church where people have left (left the local church, left the denomination, and left Christianity) because I can't perform a wedding. I have to defend why I won't do a wedding right now or leave the denomination so that I can. Let me say it this way. I had an opportunity to perform a same gender wedding and felt compelled to follow the Book of Discipline and say no. If I had yes I probably would have suffered some consequence. But I know that I would have had a sanctuary filled with people, many of whom know only that the church says there is something wrong with them. I would have had an opportunity to be a pastor for an amazing number of people. I, and the church I serve, didn't get that opportunity.

"Imagine the emotion of a couple coming to a church-wide meeting where a group of Christians is voting whether to allow their wedding in the church."

We do this every 4 years at General Conference and it is the lived experience of our lgbt sisters and brothers every day.

"I am concerned that Adam’s plan would be a set of hastily enacted changes that would only serve to destructively take our denominational battles from General Conference to the local and annual conference levels."

Surprisingly, Chris' own proposal would have the same effect. Annual Conferences would have to vote on which Jurisdiction to join and local churches could vote to make a different choice, leaving their current Annual Conference.

"If a conference can vote to allow openly gay pastors, they can vote to disallow this, too.  There might be narrow permissive votes in moderate annual conferences that are later overturned once the controversial decisions are publicized."

True. There is a risk here. I would be willing to take the risk.

"Perhaps Hamilton’s biggest omission is failing to make even passing reference to how these changes might affect our growing central conferences internationally.  His proposals would be in effect globally."

Not true. Paragraph 543.7 gives Central Conferences tremendous leeway in adjusting the Book of Discipline "provided that no action shall be taken that is contrary to the Constitution and the General Rules of the United Methodist Church, and provided that the spirit of connectional relationship is kept between the local and the general church." For example, Liberia recently reaffirmed their commitment to not elect a divorced person as bishop. But the BoD is binding on those of us in the U.S. The reality is central conferences can vote at General Conference to bind the United States conferences to decisions that in many cases the central conferences don't have to follow themselves.

"Before we concede that Hamilton’s solution is simple, we need to see his proposed legislation."

I'm confident his legislation would be similar to mine, which you can see referenced above. It is simple, 6 paragraphs are amended. Adam's proposal may add one paragraph (2533) and remove one (613.9) to my list. Compare that to the Jurisdictional Solution (Three Constitutional Amendments and three other changes, including one full new paragraph). Constitutional Amendments simply won't pass.

Finally, I think there are a couple things that Christopher and I can agree on. As more people agree to these principles I think more progress can be made.

1. Faithfulness can be messy. We're all after a faithful response to where we are as a church. We disagree about what the most faithful response is, but that is what we're aiming for nevertheless. If the solution was clean and simple then we wouldn't have this level of disagreement now. That doesn't mean we should back away from trying to do the right thing, whatever that is.

2. We can disagree agreeably. Christopher has modeled well what dialogue should look like. He has put his ideas forward on a regular basis, invited conversation and critique and (occasionally) changed some of his content to have a better crafted plan. I appreciate that and I think he appreciates the same from Adam and others.

3. General Conference actually can do something constructive. If we're willing to work together and talk together then something positive can come out of our time together in Portland.

A resolution for General Conference

Acknowledgment of Diverse Beliefs Regarding Homosexuality

Rationale: Since 1972 the United Methodist Church has taken increasingly firmer positions opposing non-heterosexual orientations. Attempting to make all United Methodists conform to traditional beliefs has not decreased denominational tension. This petition attempts to relocate decision making to the appropriate level, i.e. Annual Conference and Pastors, and ease tension.

Whereas the United Methodist Church has been gradually centralizing control in matters of ordination, candidacy, and pastoral authority as regards “self-avowed, practicing homosexuals,” and

Whereas the 2012 Book of Discipline(BoD) asserts that pastors have the authority to determine who to marry (¶340.2a3) and Annual Conferences have the authority to determine who is qualified for ordination (¶330, ¶335), and

Whereas our Doctrinal Standards are silent on sexuality but explicit in quoting John Wesley that “As to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think,” (BoD, ¶102) and

Whereas scholars in the United Methodist and other Christian traditions have made coherent cases that loving, monogamous relationships including same-sex relationships can be affirmed without jeopardizing the authority of Scripture or “strik[ing] at the root of Christianity.”

Therefore, be it resolved that the Great Plains Annual Conference petition the 2016 General Conference to amend the Book of Discipline as follows:

1. Paragraph 161F: “…We affirm that all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of God. All persons need the ministry of the Church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. A significant majority of United Methodists continue to hold the long-standing belief that homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching. While we acknowledge and respect differences in opinion on human sexuality, this remains the official position of the United Methodist Church. We affirm that God’s grace is available to all. We will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us.  We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.”

2. Paragraph 304.3: “While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.”

3. Paragraph 310.2d footnote 3: delete paragraphs 1-3, (ending with “…affirms its high standards) and 8-9 (from “The General Conference has made it  clear…” and ending with “…against persons because they are single.”). The remaining footnote references Wesley’s Questions and the final two paragraphs.

4. paragraph 341.6: “Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.”

5. paragraph 613.9: “To ensure that no annual conference board, agency, committee, commission, or council shall give United Methodist funds to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality or violate the expressed commitment of the UMC “not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends” (¶161.F). The council shall have the right to stop such expenditures. This restriction shall not limit the Church’s ministry in response to the HIV epidemic, nor shall it preclude funding for dialogs or educational events where the Church’s official position is fairly and equally represented.”

6. Paragraph 2702.1: “1 A bishop, clergy member of an annual conference (¶370), local pastor, clergy on honorable or administrative location, or diaconal minister may be tried when charged (subject to the statute of limitations in ¶2702.4) with one or more of the following offenses: (a) immorality including but not limited to, not being celibate in singleness or not faithful in a heterosexual marriage; (b) practices declared by The United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings, including but not limited to: being a self-avowed practicing homosexual; or conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual unions; or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies; (c) crime; (d) disobedience to the order and discipline of The United Methodist Church; (e) dissemination of doctrines contrary to the established standards of doctrine of The United Methodist Church; (f) relationships and/or behavior that undermines the ministry of another pastor; (g) child abuse; (h) sexual abuse;(i) sexual misconduct or (j) harassment, including, but not limited to racial and/or sexual harassment; or (k) racial or gender discrimination.

A True Middle Way for the UMC

What if there was a solution to the division in the United Methodist Church that could allow each annual conference to choose their path on human sexuality like the Jurisdictional Solution without creating all of the problems? There is. The starting point is to take seriously the words in the preamble of the Social Principles, "[W]e pledge to continue to be in respectful dialogue with those with whom we disagree, to explore the sources of our differences, to honor the sacred worth of all persons, and to tell the truth about our divisions as we continue to seek the mind of Christ and to do the will of God in all things." With that in mind, let's look paragraph by paragraph at each place in the Book of Discipline where homosexuality is mentioned. For dramatic effect we'll go in reverse order.

Paragraph 2702.1 

Includes "immorality including but not limited to..." as a chargeable offense. The immorality clause includes "being celibate in singleness or not faithful in heterosexual marriage...being a self-avowed practicing homosexual; or conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual unions; or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies..." and about a dozen other items. The key phrase here is "including but not limited to." What if the statements about homosexuality were not included (and they were only added in 2004)? I suspect not much would change. A pastor could still be charged with immorality for any of the above language if the person bringing charges interprets homosexuality as immoral. A jury would find the person guilty or not guilty based on their view, likely shaped by the Annual Conference that they are part of. It is clear that this is how we are already functioning. Bishops and juries are already finding ways around the language. In fact, the Jurisdictional Solution does this very thing, only for just one jurisdiction. In other words, as regards 2702.1, the effect of simply removing the language quoted above would be identical to the effect of the Jurisdictional Solution.

Paragraph 806.9

This paragraph charges GCFA with ensuring that funds aren't used to "promote the acceptance of homosexuality." As this pertains to a general agency I don't think the Jurisdictional Solution would affect it. Although I disagree with this paragraph for the sake of the church as a whole would not advocate for changing it.

Paragraph 613.19 

Essentially, this is the same as 806.9 but applies to the Conference Council on Finance and Administration. This would be one of the areas that the Jurisdictional Solution would allow flexibility. But what would happen if we just remove the paragraph from the BoD right now? Conferences that are opposed to homosexuality are not going to begin funding gay rights. A Conference that would support a move to the progressive jurisdiction may be willing to give financially to "promote the acceptance of homosexuality" and a conference in the traditionalist jurisdiction would not. As with 2702.1 above, simply eliminating the language would have the same practical effect as creating two jurisdictions.

Paragraph 341.6 

This is the paragraph that prohibits "homosexual unions" from taking place on United Methodist property. Again, this paragraph could be adjusted by a progressive jurisdiction. If it were eliminated completely right now I suppose some would be concerned that a pastor or church could then be forced to allow "homosexual unions." As a religious ceremony, however, a pastor has the responsibility for the integrity of a marriage ceremony (paragraph 340.2). So, in fact, as the BoD is currently worded I could marry a couple who freely admits to serial adultery...as long as they aren't gay. I would never do that because I am obligated to protect the sanctity of marriage, but if I chose to I could. Removing the language here would restore the full rights and responsibilities of pastors. However, since one could still argue that it would violate the morality clause in 2702, a pastor in a traditionalist conference would most likely not take the chance. Thus removing the language in 341.6 would have the same affect as the Jurisdictional Solution. Pastors in progressive areas would be able to perform weddings on church property and pastors in traditional areas would not take the chance.

Paragraph 310.2d 

Prohibits candidates for ministry from "the practice of homosexuality" as part of a footnote that is four pages long. Yes, the footnote covers portions of four pages. It's the same footnote, by the way, that says "the burden of proof would be upon all users [of tobacco and alcohol] to show that their action is consistent with the ideals of excellence of mind, purity of body, and responsible social behavior." In my years on the Board of Ordained Ministry I never remember that coming up. What if we deleted most of the footnote except for the line that currently reads "We affirm our trust in the covenant community and the process by which we ordain ministers."? Like we've seen before, a given conference would set its own rules for what qualifies as moral behavior. No conference would be forced to ordain "practicing homosexuals" and the rules for transferring from one conference to another would allow a bishop opposed to homosexuality from allowing a pastor to transfer to the conference he/she serves. The stakes in episcopal assignment would be higher than they currently are, but if a conference has a like-minded bishop there would be no issue. The difference between eliminating language and creating two jurisdictions would be minimal.

Paragraph 304.3

Does the same thing as the footnote above without going into the same ridiculous length. I would treat it the same way as the footnote - allow the conferences to fulfill their responsibility as they see fit.

Paragraph 161F

This is the Social Principles paragraph that calls homosexuality "incompatible with Christian teaching." And this is where I may lose my audience on the left. Here's the thing - as the preamble to the Social Principles says, I think we should be honest. The honest truth is we are divided. It is also honest to say that those of us working towards change are working at something different than the large majority of Christians today and a larger majority of Christians historically would affirm. I'm OK with acknowledging that truth. I also understand that, hypothetically, if the suggestions above were to come to fruition we would be asking our friends on the right to move beyond their comfort zone. I think those of us on the left can do the same thing. There is one important difference between what I have suggested so far and the Jurisdictional Solution. The Jurisdictional Solution leaves our anti-gay position as the normative position. The progressive jurisdiction could change that normative position, but officially the UMC would still be opposed to homosexuality. Deleting all or most language on sexuality would mean we would take no official position and the media and average church goer would understand that change to be a de facto change to support of homosexuality. I understand the fear from some delegates overseas that they may even be physically in danger if our position changes and from some regions of the U.S. there is concern about a mass exodus.

Considering all of this, I would advocate to change the relevant portion of 161F to "A significant majority of United Methodists continue to hold to the long-standing belief that homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching. While we acknowledge differences in opinion on sexuality, this remains the official position of the UMC."

Summing Up

Reaffirming our official position prevents those of us on the progressive side from gloating about a victory. It would acknowledge all that many of us want - that we are divided - while also assuring traditionalists that they are the majority opinion. Changing the other paragraphs would restore pastoral and annual conference authority in ways that are consistent and appropriate but we would not be accepting the wholesale change of position that has caused such turmoil in other denominations. Finally, specifically for those who endorse the Jurisdictional Solution, it upholds every point that the Jurisdictional Solution hopes to address without any of the shortcomings.

This proposal would require no constitutional amendments. It would require only a majority vote at General Conference. In other words, it could pass. And, I believe, it could bring us back together.

The Jurisdictional Solution Isn't

I want it to work. I want to have a clean solution to the division in the United Methodist Church that already has some momentum behind it. The Jurisdiction Solution has some of those aspects to it. But it can't work.

For those unfamiliar with it, the basic approach of the Jurisdictional Solution is to divide the United States into two Jurisdictions, each with the ability to adapt the Book of Discipline. There would be one "traditional' jurisdiction and one "progressive" jurisdiction and each annual conference would take a one time vote to decide which jurisdiction to be part of. The proponents have put in a tremendous amount of work and should be commended for that work. You can read the full treatment of the proposal at jurisdictionalsolution.org.

But for all of its positive attributes, and there are many, it just won't work. Here's why:

It Can't Pass

The Jurisdictional Solution requires constitutional amendments. That means it would take a 2/3 vote at General Conference and a majority of United Methodists voting at annual conferences the following year to actually pass. As contentious as the debate around human sexuality has been it's difficult to believe that any proposal will get agreement from 2/3 of General Conference. If it did pass then we would have a full year of politicking to get a majority vote in annual conferences. We tried this in 2008 when a series of constitutional amendments were passed at General Conference and failed at the annual conferences. Those proposals failed largely because it was feared that they would be used to accomplish what the Jurisdictional Solution is now trying to implement - a more localized decision on sexuality.

The timing is unhelpful

If approved by General Conference and annual conferences the constitutional amendments would still not be ratified by the Council of Bishops until 2018. That means we have two more years after General Conference before we would even know if we're going to have new jurisdictions. Then more politicking in conferences where the debate will be a close one. If everything runs perfectly it would be 2019 before the new jurisdictions are at all functional. That's a long time to argue with high stakes before having a final decision.

It will lead to radicalization

The Jurisdictional Solution neatly divides us in half with one liberal and one conservative jurisdiction...and one significant group is left out. The entire middle. Human sexuality has become a litmus test that unfairly divides us. A person's stance on human sexuality does not define that person's view on the authority of Scripture, sin, and any number of social issues. It just doesn't. But if those of us caught in the theological middle are divided between two jurisdictions...we'll be divided. The fringe in both jurisdictions will become more dominant. I don't want to be in a jurisdiction that questions the divinity of Christ. I also don't want to be part of a jurisdiction that questions the practice of infant baptism. Both of these issues and many more may well be up for debate if the middle becomes a minority voting block in either jurisdiction.

It's a prelude to schism

Because of the radicalization that will occur we will simply grow further apart until in the near future it simply makes no sense to stay one church. The logistics of schism will also become much more straightforward when we can simply excise a single jurisdiction from the denomination.

There is another way

If there was a way of achieving the benefits of the Jurisdictional Solution without these significant problems I'd be all for it. I want a plan that can be passed, that can give freedom to annual conferences to make the decisions they feel appropriate, and that holds us together instead of threatens to divide us further. I think there is such a solution; it just hasn't been seriously explored yet. In my next post you'll see a proposal that stacks up very favorably to the Jurisdictional Solution.

What We Know About the Shooting of Michael Brown

What do we know about the shooting of Michael Brown? Not much. Every time there is an incident that makes national news we feel like we know what really happened. We've all seen enough of the news that it seems like surely we have enough information to render a verdict. But we don't. The most informed people are the members of the grand jury that chose not to prosecute. They don't know exactly what happened either, of course. Without having a camera on the police officer, which Michael Brown's family is endorsing, nobody can know for sure exactly what happened.

But there's something much bigger going on here. The question that needs to be asked is why doesn't the community of Ferguson, and communities across the country, trust that the right verdict was reached. That's the reason for the protests, right? If there was trust in the system then the protests wouldn't be needed. Regardless of whether or not charges should have been filed, what we know about the shooting of Michael Brown is that it isn't just about Michael Brown.

It's about the statistical reality that black teenagers are 21 times more likely to be killed by police than white teenagers. 

It's about the guy who called in on the radio today and said that we can't blame African-American's problems today on slavery anymore since it ended 400 years ago. Only 250 years off.

It's about the fact that 100 years after the end of slavery we still had "white" and "colored" water fountains. 

It's about the embarrassing truth that unemployment remains twice as high for African-Americans than for white Americans, and has ever since the Civil Rights Movement.

In short, the story of Michael Brown, whether or not he was ever a real threat to anyone the day he was shot, is a story of institutional racism. This is the reality - not just theory - that there are biases so deep that most of us who are in the majority aren't even aware that they exist. What makes it so pernicious is that it is invisible to us because of our social location. That doesn't mean it's not real.

There's a helpful metaphor for those of us who believe in God - God is like the wind. We don't see God directly, we see God by how God effects others like the wind blowing a leaf. In the same way, we don't see institutional racism directly - we don't hear racial slurs as often or see "white only" signs. Instead we see it by its effects. Protesters in Ferguson, unemployed adults and under-educated teens, citizens ignorant of basic history.

Michael Brown's death is tragic. Even more tragic is that it won't be the last. We have unquestionably made progress, but we unquestionably have a long, long way to go.

Thank you Kaci Hickox

You likely have heard the story of Kaci Hickox even if you don't know the name. Here's a refresher and an update.

Long story short, Kaci is a nurse who recently returned to the U.S. after treating Ebola patients in West Africa. Instead of being welcomed back, she was immediately quarantined because she had a slightly above normal temperature. She continued to be quarantined even though

• Subsequent temperature readings showed that her temperature was normal.
• She had NO symptoms of Ebola and a person is only contagious if they are symptomatic
• She soon TESTED NEGATIVE for Ebola not once, but twice.

That's right, she was in quarantine to protect the community from a disease that she never had and couldn't have spread even if she did have it. Exactly 4 people have been diagnosed with Ebola in the United States. Only 2 people have contracted it in the United States. There are three countries in Africa where Ebola is truly a crisis. Every place else, including the other 44 countries in Africa, are doing just fine.

Ebola is scary. Any virus that kills is scary. But when a woman is quarantined for the sake of public safety even though there is conclusive evidence that she is not ill we have allowed fear to control us. 

So why should we all thank Kaci Hickox? Because this otherwise ordinary person resisted the absurd rules that were put in place and fought for her right to live freely. From time to time we need to remind public officials and private citizens of how easy it is for those rights to be taken away.

In 1985, a Los Angeles Times poll showed that 51 percent of Americans were in favor of quarantining AIDS patients. 48 percent believed those with AIDS should have to carry ID cards and 15 percent wanted to tattoo AIDS patients. Today those notions seem absurd, but 20 years ago when people were scared it didn't seem like such a bad idea. Think something like that can't actually happen? It was a different kind of fear but fear nonetheless that led to the internment of more than 100,000 Japanese Americans during World War II. Fear is a powerful motivator, but fear as a motivator must be resisted. That's what Kaci did. Others will benefit from her willingness to take heat in the media and from residents of the town she lives in. 

So thank you, Kaci Hickox. Thank you for caring for your fellow humanity in serving the people of West Africa and thank you for resisting injustice here at home by standing up to those who tried to shut you down.

Get Past the Video

The video inside the elevator was not as jarring to me as maybe it should have been. It just provided a grainy image to a story that I have already heard too often from women who have come to my office speaking (or too afraid to openly speak) about domestic abuse. Seeing the video shouldn't really have made any difference - the NFL should have been criticized for not taking stronger action than they did regardless. Domestic abuse is an unseen epidemic in this country that negatively affects generations.

As public as the Ray Rice incident has been, it would be tragic for us not to make progress as a country on this. And yet, here's the three most visible outcomes that I've seen so far:

1. I've seen a woman attacked multiple times on TV. You can stop showing the video now - we know what happened and the victims of abuse can stop reliving the experience every time they turn on the news!

2.  CBS dropped Rihanna from their Thursday Night Football broadcast. They say it's because it wouldn't set the tone they were looking for, but 1) Rihanna herself has been abused and 2)They never bothered to ask Rihanna about removing her song.

3. Covergirl has become the only NFL official sponsor to be targeted by protests. I should say that in my opinion the protest of Covergirl is very well done. But the only company being protested is...a product for women. Really? How about Anheuser-Busch since alcohol consumption is often a contributing factor to abuse? To be clear: alcohol does not cause abuse. A person chooses to abuse. But alcohol makes a really convenient excuse and may increase the likelihood of abuse.

In other words, other than Ray Rice himself the people who seem to be most negatively effected by this whole thing are...women.

We need more women like Megan MacKay and men like Chris Carter to step up and say it like it is. And we need more people like you and me to say it like it is, too.

If you are a woman, you don't have to stand for the abuse. Megan's video includes helpful links that you can follow for help.

But women shouldn't be abused to begin with! If you're a man, stand up for what's right. If you are a man you are automatically either part of the problem or part of the solution. If you're an abuser you're obviously part of the problem and you need to find a therapist to help you figure out how to cope with the issue(s) that have brought you to this point. You don't have to continue to abuse. But just not abusing someone doesn't make you part of the solution. If you know someone in an abusive relationship and you say or do anything that could be construed as support for the abuse, even staying silent when you see abuse, then you are part of the problem. If you hear another man make a joke that involves abuse and laugh, you are part of the problem. If you hear a man justify Ray Rice or anybody else in their abuse, you are part of the problem.

I have two daughters. I don't want either one of them, or any of their friends, or any of your children or grandchildren, to some day walk into their pastor's office to share a story of abuse. For their sake, and for the sake of their generation, please be part of the solution.