I have struggled with how best to publicly respond to the recent General Conference of The United Methodist Church. I have struggled because I don't want to react uncritically to what has happened. I don't want to belittle the actions that have been taken or the very real pain, grief, and sorrow that many, including myself, are feeling right now. I don't want to uncritically lay the blame for this at the feet of others. I don't want to react in an attempt to apply a balm to my own feelings of guilt. I don't want to shame those that don't agree with me (or those that do for that matter).
But I also can't not respond. I can't simply sit back and say that all will be well because as a white, cishet male everything will be fine for me. But I struggle with how best to respond. Not because I don't care, but because I care deeply about what happens next.
For those that may not understand our denominational structure or have any idea what I am talking about, the General Conference is our legislative body and the only part of the church authorized to speak on behalf of the entire denomination. (Yes, we have a legislative body; in fact, our denominational structure has many similarities to the American system of government, but that is a tale for another time. You can get a brief overview of our structure here: Constitutional Structure.) The General Conference meets regularly every four years to make decisions on various pieces of legislation. Those items that are affirmed become part of our Book of Discipline, which is a living and ever changing document that lays out the structure of our life together. On rare occasions, a special called session of General Conference can be called as needed. The session this last week was only the second such since The Methodist Church merged with the Evangelical United Brethren to form The United Methodist Church in 1968.
Our most recent called conference was called for the specific purpose of making decisions related to our denominational stance on human sexuality, a euphemistic way of saying "What do we do about gay people in our church?" You see, at the 1972 General Conference, language was added to our Book of Discipline stating that the practice of homosexuality "is incompatible with Christian teaching" in the very same paragraph where "We affirm that all persons are individuals of sacred worth" (see the Social Principles, ¶161.G in The Book of Discipline). This was not a part of the original language but was suggested by a delegate from floor and voted in as an amendment (you can read an account from the delegate that proposed this addition here: Sharing in Faith: Did the conflict begin with ‘the language’?). Not only has that statement remained, regardless of attempts to have it removed, additional language has over the years been added or strengthened that explicitly bans the ordination of homosexual clergy and the performance of same gender weddings.
So we met to talk about LGBTQIA people as if they were not in the room, as if "they" are something "we" have a right to make decisions about. We met because at our regular General Conference in 2016, things had gotten to a point where a deeply conservative group within the US was on the verge of splitting off. (I am glossing over a few other important pieces here for the sake of brevity.) The fallout of such a split was thought to be too messy to allow. We decided to try to seek unity as a denomination rather than split the church. The bishops appointed a special commission tasked with helping us find a way forward as a single denomination (read a little more here: Commission on a Way Forward). The Commission worked hard and developed together two plans that could allow for us to continue to exist side by side in our disagreement over whether all members of the church deserved to be included at all levels of the church.
While accounts vary on how exactly this happened, it seems that the third plan, the so-called "traditional" plan, was developed outside the scope of the Commission (see the note on page 55 of the Way Forward Commission Report: report in English). While the two plans developed by the Commission had problems and fell short of actually affirming all of the people who already exist as a part of our churches, they at least sought a way for us all to exist together alongside each other in our disagreement. This third plan sought no compromise, not only maintaining the full weight of the language that already exists, but also adding punitive measures such as minimum penalties and oversight committees. It essentially says, if you don't agree with us go somewhere else. This is not a way forward; this does not seek a place for all the people of God to live together in spite of our disagreements. This is a "my way or the highway" ultimatum. Retired Bishop William Willimon has addressed some of this in interviews and articles this week (here is one he wrote for the Christian Century: The Methodist Mess in St Louis).
Many of us had approached this General Conference in good faith, assuming we were seeking a way to continue forward together in our common mission even as we sometimes disagree on the particularities. But the 800+ delegates that met in St. Louis to represent the over 12 million United Methodists around the world chose the one plan that no one thought would win, the one plan that does not actually seek to move us forward together, by an almost evenly split margin; an additional three percent of delegates voting against the plan would have blocked it. To say that many of us were caught off guard and devastated by this decision would be an understatement.
In the aftermath of this, many of us that are welcoming and affirming have rushed to make it clear that no matter what the General Conference has decided on behalf of the church, it is not our stance. Many of us were in this fight already, openly taking a stance alongside our brother and sisters and others for whom that gendered binary does not apply. There are many that have put their credentials and their jobs on the line to marry same gendered couples, to open the doors of the church wide for all that would come to hear the good news of God's love for us. There are many that have been a listening and supportive ear for those struggling with what it means to be part of a church that officially on paper says they are not welcome. There are many that have submitted petitions and voted for changes to our Book of Discipline year after year in an attempt to get rid of the language that is there. And there are many that have stated publicly and without hesitation that a person's sexuality has little if anything to do with gifts for ministry and should not be the single deciding factor for whether or not one is ordained.
Those most affected by this legislation, those who have been dehumanized for years by this denomination, they know who they can trust. They know those in the church that have loved them before this vote and will continue to do so regardless of the official policy of the church. They know who is in this fight alongside them. And I hope that I have done a good enough job of supporting and affirming them that they know I stand with them.
I have reached out privately or semi-privately to many I know and love over the last week, both before and after the vote, to send them love and affirmation in the midst of this. But I have struggled with how to respond publicly. It is easy to sign an open letter or to share a few choice words or memes on facebook (I have done both). However I also want to be careful to shoulder my own part in all of this in the process. I am ordained clergy in a denomination that is officially on paper not open to all people. And I have to claim that without laying the blame at someone else's feet.
Many have made a big deal of the fact that polls suggest that between 2/3 and 3/4 of the voting delegates from the US were opposed to the "Traditional" plan and voted for the One Church plan. As demographics and acceptance shifts in this country, I can see that being true. But when shared uncritically, this lays the blame for this decision at the feet of our global brothers and sisters. And frankly that is not fair. We can't talk about United Methodism in Africa without an awareness of the colonialist mindset and structures in place. We can't talk about the decisions supported by those in other countries without recognizing the homophobia that the West has exported to them (see this two year old article in The Guardian: Britain Can't Just Reverse the Homophobia It Exported During the Empire). And The United Methodist Church in the US can't condemn the decisions of delegates from other countries without addressing the problems with the Book of Discipline that we have given them and the expectations we laid on them as a part of our church.
Those of us in the US have little room to talk. Yes, over the past 10 years, I have seen the shift in my own Annual Conference. I have seen votes on how we think and talk about our LGBTQIA members that were so close that we had to have standing votes to be individually counted in my early years attending conference to now approximately 2/3 of members shifting towards a stance of support and affirmation. I have served and/or been a part of churches in four different annual conferences. And in every one there have been LGBTQIA members (some more open than others) and I would guess there have also been those in every church that were opposed to welcoming those members. So before we seek to lay the blame on someone else, let us not forget our own place in this.
Instead of reacting out of our guilt and complicity, let us ask for forgiveness for the harm we have caused, the ongoing harm we have participated in. It feels good to say we love and welcome all people. And I want it to be true, but not without acknowledging all the baggage that has come before, all the pain that continues to be felt by members of the body of Christ. What hurts one of us hurts all of us (1 Corinthians 12:26-27).
At the end of the day, I am far more interested in how my actions speak for me. I want those that do not yet know me to know I will stand with them and be an open door for them. For there have been LGBTQIA members of every church I have been in, in every community I have lived in, and they deserve to know God's love just as surely as anyone else. I want those who are afraid to speak their truth to know they can come to me and talk to me about their faith and the fear they live with in a church (and world) that doesn't know how to love them. I want those that have been told they are outside of God's love to have their faith affirmed and to hear that nothing in all of creation can separate them from God's love for them (Romans 8:38-39).
And I want the church to know that God cannot be confined to a box. In our focus on this one aspect of our brothers and sisters and others in faith, we have made this our idol. Through faulty biblical interpretation and bad theology, we have made sexuality in its varied expressions bigger than God, bigger than God's love for us. And I simply do not believe that. God is merciful, and God came to live amongst a sinful people to prove our worth. To be clear, it is our fallen humanity that is sinful. Let us stop trying to put God in a box that is smaller than our lived experience in the world.
Jesus summarized all of the law and the prophets into two phrases - love God with all that you are, and love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:37-40). And Jesus showed us over and over that neither the love of God nor the love we are called to show each other has any limits. Every limit that the people of his time had created to exclude or "other" people, Jesus showed how those "others" were exactly who we are called to love and welcome (see many of Jesus' parables).
So to those members of the church still reading, I love you, and I want you to know that God loves you no matter who you love. I reaffirm my calling to help you grow deeper in your relationship with God.
And to any LGBTQIA+ persons still reading (current friends or not), God loves you, and I want you to know it. And because you are a beloved child of God, I love you, and I am sorry for the way we have treated you.