Their Complaints and My Response

In an email I asked the bishop to explain to me the complaints from my lesson. Someone pointed out that I did not receive permission to share his personal correspondence, so I revised them as if I were relating a discussion like I did in my previous post. I've included the relevant summaries of his email and my full response.

Summary of the bishop's comments:

He prefaced his comments reminding me that he was not in the lesson. He listed the following complaints he received from members:

• People were uncomfortable with my struggling testimony
• I taught my opinions mingled with scripture
• I was biased with "gender issues" and different lifestyles
• I had a personal agenda and a "bone to pick with the church doctrine"
• Sunday School is not the place to debate and argue doctrine
• Sunday School is the place to teach true doctrine by the spirit
• My lesson was in the spirit of contention
• The general authorities would not teach like I did

The then described the reasoning for his decision, which is essentially this: he doesn't want Sunday School to be a place of confrontation, debate, or arguing points of doctrine. He didn't disagree with what I taught, but said SS isn't the place to teach it. He is afraid that those who dislike confrontation will not come back and said that's why some left. Essentially, he wants people to leave feeling the spirit, not feeling anxious or defensive.

He felt the shock and awe of my lesson was overwhelming and decided to rescind the calling because I was a risk. He has a lot on his plate right now, and a group of adults feeling anxious isn't a topic he'd like to discuss with the Stake President. Basically, he isn't "ready to take on the challenges" and doesn't believe Sunday School is the place for these discussions.

This was my response:

I wish you were in my lesson. I did acknowledge that I struggle with my testimony, but isn't that the reason for church? The reason we go? To strengthen our testimonies? I was honest with them just as countless others were honest with the people they taught.

I included my opinions and personal agenda in my lesson, which is this: we don't live the doctrine. We preach love and acceptance, and we don't live it. We teach that we should love our neighbors, but we get angsty when we discuss other lifestyles and refuse to love them no matter what. I do have a "bone to pick with the church," but its members, not its doctrine. I never spoke a word of false doctrine. I taught love and acceptance just as Christ did. I felt I was being guided by the Spirit as I prepared for my lesson. The only reason I can think that there was a spirit of contention was because I taught the gospel at its purest and simplest form: love. Unfortunately, it seems people aren't ready to accept that doctrine. I do not claim that I taught the way a general authority would teach, but some of the things I've heard said in classes and meetings I couldn't imagine Christ teaching. 

I challenged people to love everyone, just as the lesson objective said: "To encourage class members to fulfill their responsibilities as latter-day Israel to love all the people of the world and share the blessings of the gospel with them." It makes me so incredibly sad that when I asked people to love and accept an openly gay couple to worship with us that they thought it was "biased with gender issues." 

I understand what you did and why you did it, but I disagree with you. I wasn't being confrontational, debating doctrine, or arguing different points of doctrine. I asked people to love each other and forgive everyone, just like Christ did in Matthew 22:36-39 and D&C 64:10.

If we aren't to ask hard questions and learn together in church, where are we to do that? Didn't President Uchtdorf encourage questions? I understand that several people struggle with gender issues, and we preach that "we do not agree or support their lifestyle but we love them as we do all members of our families and ward," but when we ask people to sit next to them extending an arm of fellowship when they choose to worship with us, we expel the person who asked us to do it. How is that true doctrine? How can we as a ward teach love and acceptance and then throw out the person who asks people to actually do it? 

I hope you do council with the Stake President about what I taught and how the members reacted. Talk about it in ward council; that's the purpose for ward council. If you do, remember 1 Nephi 16:2. If people aren't living the gospel, they should go home feeling a little anxious and defensive. But once they ponder the issues and see how they can improve, then they will feel the light. And think of the Savior sitting down with the poor and the publicans, and when the Sadducees and Pharisees thought Christ was a radical for preaching love, for asking people to unconditionally forgive. This is why I fear the chasm between the culture of the church and the doctrine of the church. The culture slowly turns us into Sadducees and Pharisees and we accuse those who teach love in the gospel as a "man with a personal agendas and a bone to pick with the church."

In my lesson I referenced President Uchtdorf's "Come, Join with Us." It saddens me that the people in the ward feel that doesn't apply to gay people or those who want to love and accept them.

My thoughts now:

I understand what he did and why he did it, and it makes me sad that it happened.