Discussions about unity, schism, and what General Conference should/should not do is currently dominated by straight white males. Since last year, this blog has committed itself to bringing forward LGBT Methodist voices to its international audience. Even when I find myself in disagreement with LGBT voices, I am bettered by a diverse perspective that is truly the strength of the United Methodist Church.
Here’s one such perspective, reflecting on a proposed way “how” we are to discuss LGBT inclusion at General Conference. Since LGBT persons are more often talked about than talked with, I invited Dr. Benz to reflect on how the process felt to her and what we might do going forward.
===
There is no way out but through
Dr. Dorothee Benz
The proposed “alternative process” for discussing legislation about the UMC’s discrimination against LGBTQ people at the 2016 General Conference has left those of us who are queer, once again, acutely aware that we are seen as a problem for the church to solve, rather than as a part of the church.
I can vouch for the Commission on General Conference’s good intentions in making this proposal, as I was one of a number of people invited to discuss it with the commission before their decision to adopt it. Nonetheless, its primary effect is institution-preserving and not justice-enabling, and it runs the risk of increasing the harm done to LGBTQ people at General Conference.
Segregation
The intent to separate out and treat differently legislation that concerns the lives of LGBTQ United Methodists from all other United Methodists is troubling; it pretends that LGBTQ people can somehow be neatly quarantined and discussion of our fate kept from contaminating the rest of General Conference. To state the problem in this way is to make its offensiveness obvious. The truth is that LGBTQ United Methodists, while singled out for stigma and discrimination, are an integral part of our church and cannot be excised from it for purposes of legislative debate.
What about legislation that calls for action from the UMC against hate crimes? Will we relegate it to the alternate process because it mentions hate crimes against LGBTQ people, and thus also segregate the concerns of people of color, immigrants, people with disabilities and others who are victims of hate crimes? Is a petition that calls for the church to take a stand against police violence, an issue that affects Black, Brown and Queer people, going to go to this separate process, or will it be considered with other church and society legislation? Where will we discuss the lethal epidemic of hate violence against trans women of color in the U.S.? What about the crisis of homeless queer youth – will this be discussed with broader issues of homelessness and economic crisis, or will it come through the alternative process? These are pressing issues in LGBTQ communities, and should be pressing issues for he church. What about legislation that calls for greater inclusion in the UMC by strengthening rather than eliminating GCORR and COSROW, where does that go? Do queer people of color and lesbians have to bifurcate their identities into separate compartments?
LGBTQ people are whole people; our concerns cannot be segregated from other concerns in the church.
(And what about all the structural proposals floating around the UMC? As Jeremy Smith put it, “We cannot escape the reality that all these unity or schism plans are really all in response to the question of LGBT Inclusion in the life of the Church.” Will they be discussed in the alternative process?)
Accountability
The biggest problem with the proposed alternative process is that it removes a significant and critical segment of the General Conference’s debate from view and thus from accountability. It proposes to replace the entire committee process on issues concerning the church’s stance towards LGBTQ people. Unless the proposed small group and facilitation group discussions are all open to observers and media, the way the legislative committee sessions are, the fate of LGBTQ people in the UMC will be decided in significant measure entirely out of public view.
The elimination of the entire committee process for legislation that will decide whether or not the church continues to discriminate looks very much like an effort to remove this embarrassing discussion from public view.
There is a saying, from a different spiritual tradition, that applies here: You are as sick as your secrets. The UMC is plagued by ongoing prejudice and discrimination against LGBTQ people, and it is challenged by its deep divisions over the sinfulness-versus-godliness of this bigotry. But the way to deal with these problems is not by hiding them from public view and accountability. In the words of Martin Luther King:
“Like a boil that can never be cured as long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its pus-flowing ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must likewise be exposed, with all of the tension its exposing creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.”
Safety
A grave concern about this process is one I and others raised repeatedly with the commission: How will the commission ensure that LGBTQ people are protected from potentially even greater harm than we have endured at past General Conferences, where we were subjected repeatedly to hate speech? Without observers and media, LGBTQ people in small groups will be more vulnerable to attack, just like the target of bullies is more vulnerable in an empty alley than a crowded hallway. The commission has made much of the possibility that this alternative process will increase participation in a critical debate in our denomination, offering a chance for the “middle voices” to be heard (though I confess, I do not know what exactly a middle voice between favoring discrimination and opposing it is). Greater participation is indeed a virtue, but it is worth considering that this process may in fact have the opposite effect – that it keeps LGBTQ people from speaking up at all, precisely because we find ourselves in an isolated alley of discussion rather than an open forum.
That this danger has not been addressed in the proposed process is symptomatic of a steadfast refusal throughout the denomination to recognize that in the context of discrimination and oppression, true dialogue can never occur. Genuine dialogue requires equality, and in the UMC that equality does not exist. One party comes to these conversations as defined as less than the other party – in the case of clergy, vulnerable to prosecution if they even identify themselves; in the case of laity, possibly exposing our allies to prosecution. No amount of vocal wishing for us all to act as “brothers and sisters together” changes that. Only with painful honesty about this reality, and concrete measures to counteract the power imbalance, is there even the possibility of constructive conversation.
Struggle is not to be avoided, but engaged
The search for an alternative process to deal with the UMC’s debate over discrimination reminds me of the current rage for structural reform proposals in the church. There is an almost desperate effort to avoid another General Conference showdown on the issue – from the progressive side, with the intent to escape the spiritual carnage and the damage done to LGBTQ ppl; on the institutional side, with the intent to circumvent the spectacle of unholy conferencing, the media attention and the logistical nightmare of delays and protests. But all process proposals, like structural proposals, contain in them substantive consequences, consequences that will either perpetuate discrimination or dismantle it. What they will not do is resolve the church’s division over the issue, and the idea that we can somehow avoid a reckoning of the matter if only we find the right process or structural reform is illusory. As I have said elsewhere, “struggle is not something to be avoided; rather it is the crucible in which we create a better, more inclusive church. We need to engage in the struggle to change our church, not try to sidestep our way around it.”
Dorothee Benz is a lifelong United Methodist, a delegate to 2016 General Conference, and the national representative of Methodists in New Direction (MIND). She was at the April Commission on General Conference meeting at the invitation of Love Prevails, which was invited to the meeting along with the Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA) and the Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN).
====
Thoughts?
Benz, thank you for your commentary. I continue to be frustrated (disgusted?) by the framing of debates related to human sexuality as debates about various sides of an “issue” rather than acknowledging/owning that this is about where we see LGBTQ persons within the body of Christ. Are they in or are they out and what are the ramifications of those answers?
I oppose the CT’s latest proposal because it seeks to find a way to push the struggle away from General Conference. I know many see it as a way forward, a way of making some form of progress at this General Conference, but pushing the struggle out of the spotlight of GC and making life easier for some people at the sacrifice of those LGBT persons and their allies who become even more isolated, even more cut off from the rest of the body, is too high a cost.
I’m not able to see it as “pragmatic” to agree with such an action. The goal is not to end the struggle or at least to move it away! The goal is to end the harm, and that can only be done by bringing the struggle into the light of day and seeking that sunlit path of justice about which MLK spoke!
I’ve seen it said that we can’t force conservatives to agree with us. That is true, and I don’t have any problem with that. But I don’t seek to force conservatives to agree with my interpretation of the Bible and my understanding of God’s will and love; I seek to end the harm of conservatives seeking to enforce their interpretations of the Bible, their will, upon me and the rest of the church.
Think it’s sinful to officiate at a same-sex wedding? Then don’t, but allow others of us to do our own interpreting and pursue our own efforts to understand God’s will and love. Think it’s sinful to marry a partner of the same gender as you? Then don’t, but allow others of us to do our own interpreting and pursue our own efforts to understand God’s will and love and presence and blessings upon our relationships, including those of us who have been affirmed as being called by God to ministry. No one will force a pastor to officiate at a same-sex wedding, and no one will force a person to marry a partner of the same gender.
This isn’t a call for conservative persons to change their minds, or a call to force conservative persons to change their minds; it is a call to conservative persons to stop trying to use church law to enforce your biblical interpretations and understandings upon everyone else within the UM family. This is a call upon those “in the middle” to stop thinking that all of this is about “an issue” and see that real harm is done to real people by both our actions and our inactions, and all of this struggle is about such people and where we see them within the body of Christ.
I’ve also seen it said that if we don’t agree to incremental change like what the CT has proposed, and on both sides all we seek is all or nothing, then in the end one of us will end up with a Pyrrhic victory that may not end up being worth it at all. An end result like that would make me very sad, but the harm that continues right now, every single day, also makes me very sad. At the end of the day, or even on the first day of the week, we aren’t going to be judged by how many butts we can get in our pews. We are judged by our discipleship. I am easily able to be part of a Christian family that includes people who disagree with me on the place of LGBT persons within the Church–there is so much good and faithful work that we are able to do together and we are doing every single day–but I am not able to be silent when that union means enforcing a particular interpretation about human sexuality on the entirety of the rest of the Church through legal means in such a way that some of our members must be actively harmed and their lives and relationships destroyed by it.
If only your remark “think it’s sinful to officiate at a same sex wedding – then don’t” was workable. When the Supremes come down 5 to 4 in favor of same sex marriage (which by the way as an originalist I believe is constitutional), the next step LGBTQ activists will demand is the removal of tax exempt status for churches whose pastors decline to officiate. This issue is going to destroy some denominations- I think the UMC will split on or before next General Conference, into progressive and conservative denominations. Problem is most of the big, big money churches are conservative, or at least unwilling to stick their necks out THAT far.
All this is blather if the Africans are not represented at the Connectional Table (or other mechanisms of process) in respect of their dignity and in deference to their numbers.
I find it curious that it is often the same people who do not object to a lack of women’s or minority voices on a committee or effort are full-throated in their support of African voices. We can’t have it both ways because then we are using people as tokens rather than being fully committed to a representative effort.
If you are trying to marginalize my comment, you are wide of the mark. But perhaps you were only trying to deflect from the point. The church needs to open up the process to the Africans…and not via machinations of control.
Gary, if I was going to deflect your comment, I would say that you are commenting on the makeup of the Connectional Table when Benz is commenting on the General Commission on General Conference. So you not are commenting on the same group and it’s inappropriate to dismiss one group’s work when referring to another group.
There’s no switcheroo here. The process (of whatever kind) in this connectional church must have a strong African face. Strategems should not be employed against the Africans to minimize their dignity and significance to the future of the church.
What official um committee does not have minority or female representation?
Benz, thank you for this. As a straight, white ally, relatively new to activism, I come with the best intentions. I recognize that I am occasionally clueless about how my efforts feel to those who are marginalized, and I always try to pay close attention to what you say.
I so agree with Dr. Benz. This process change for the upcoming General Conference and the decision to hold the 2028 conference in Zimbabwe both shine a spotlight on the denomination’s inability to view things from the perspective of a LGBTQ Methodist. I am reminded of an old retired UMC pastor in my congregation who said, “We need to talk about other things. How long are we going to keep talking about this?” I replied that we would be happy for the discussion to move on, but that will only happen when there is no more issue, when LGBTQ members are fully included and treated with respect.
I wish I could agree with Dr. Benz. I wish I could say that we just need to go ahead and achieve full inclusion of LGBTQ persons at all levels and in every way in the UMC. But we can’t do that now. We simply can’t legislate a change of heart and mind and deeply held belief. If this is rejected by the LGBTQ community as not being enough; then we are at an impasse. If it really must be all or nothing it will be nothing. I know this discussion was mainly about how issues will be handled, but the underlying current is that we have to move to full inclusion full acceptance now or it is not enough.If that is where we are; then I am out. Not because I want to be, but because I can’t change the minds of those who agree with the BOD. And if the best efforts that we can do at this time; and the best solution that will pass GC is not enough; then I am out. I can’t do what you want and need and I will not have what I am able to do be dismissed as useless.
Yes, Linda, as an LGBT person in seminary, pursuing ordination in the South, I fear you are correct. Let us propose and expose the problems with the Connectional Table’s proposal (and A Way Forward) but if we refuse to compromise in 2016, then we will end up with nothing. I and my LGBT friends in the south will continue to be under incredible minority stress, and likely have to leave the process and The UMC.
Thomas, when you self identify as LGBTQ, what does that identifier signify to you? I think part of the issue we have is that different people intend different things by the term LGBTQ.
I am reading from the sidelines with interest. As a church member and an lgbtq I have become numbed to the cries of unjustice and sometimes just dont care. I see the official UMC stance as a blind use of power, constraint and finally selfishness. Having eyes they see not….What a mess. thank you for your energy, clarity and leadership, Benz.