One of this blog’s values is offering a space for commentary on The United Methodist Church by a variety of voices. Here’s Dr. Benz’s always-spectacular commentary, this time on Rule 44, previously covered here, and the concerted outrage to it online.
===
In defense of safe space
Reflections on the opposition to Rule 44’s Guidelines for Conversation
By Dr. Dorothee Benz
Right-wing opposition to Rule 44 – the General Conference’s proposed alternative small-group process for discussing whether and how the UMC will continue to discriminate against LGBTQI people – is well established at this point. The process, which delegates will debate and adopt (or not) on the first day of General Conference, was designed by the General Conference Commission to find a more humane way to debate the church’s continued exclusion of queer people. Yes, it could be used to discuss other issues, but the commission sought to create the process to address this issue. I know, because I was in the room when the commission first discussed it.
I have my own misgivings about Rule 44, but I think with some modification it is worth trying. I can also vouch for the commission’s earnest desire to find a better way to “have the conversation.” The right’s rejection of Rule 44 – “Frankly, I do not see an alternative process that would achieve the benefits that occur under Robert’s Rules of Order,” as Rev. Keith Boyette put it – strikes me as rather pre-emptively dismissive.
It’s an ironic stance to take (some might say hypocritical) for people whose main talking point has been concern for the covenantal relationship we enter into with each other as United Methodists.
Vitriol Online
But the general aversion to trying something new with Rule 44 pales next to the vitriol that the “Guidelines for Conversation” accompanying the alternative process have unleashed.
These guidelines – things like be respectful, avoid stereotyping, respect the integrity of those with different opinions, apologize if you hurt someone, don’t use your power over someone to pressure them to agree with you – have been described as “the infantilizing of #UMCGC” in blog embraced by conservatives on Twitter. “UMC on the verge of being weaponized against Christ” one #UMCGC tweet said.
Really?? Asking people to be respectful and avoid stereotypes is weaponizing the church—against Christ?!
The guideline suggesting that you apologize if you hurt someone is characterized in the blog as “insanity” and “sheer madness” with an added explanation that “there are people who routinely weaponize ‘hurt’ as a power play” (there’s that word again…).
Rev. Drew McIntyre promoted his blog with this tweet (among others): “How to turn a church-wide council into a ‘Safe Space.’”
It’s a pretty good bet that if someone feels the need to belittle the idea of safe space with scare quotes then the space they are talking about is not safe.
The Case for Monitors
The scorn heaped upon the Guidelines for Conversation extends as well to the monitors from COSROW and GCORR who will be present in the small groups to “observe the process and signal the group leader if they observe harmful behavior as determined according to the Guidelines for Conversation” (Rule 44, (5)).
“Paternalism,” McIntyre derided the monitoring idea, deploying his scare quotes again to complain, “We are told that these monitors will determine what is and is not ‘harmful’ behavior.” Meanwhile, others joked on Twitter about John Lomperis being ineligible to be a monitor because he “doesn’t appear to be ethnic or female.”
These outbursts make the case for the necessity of monitors far more convincingly than any column I could write.
Do No Harm?
I am not sure why the suggestion that there ought to be some intentional care taken when we enter into conversation together evokes such hostility. From the outside, it looks not just like a denial of the idea that there is such a thing as homophobic, or racist or sexist, speech that it is desirable to curb; but also like an entitled belief that any limits or any judgment on what these critics have to say is unacceptable.
But bottom line, is it really such a hardship to respect fellow Methodists’ integrity, avoid stereotyping them, and be willing to apologize when you hurt them? Can you not disagree with my theology without denigrating my person? Does the Wesleyan mandate to “do no harm” not give you pause to at least want to try?
If the answer to that last question is no, then please stop talking about the sanctity of the “covenant” in the United Methodist Church as you file complaints and propose easier ways to prosecute LGBTQI Methodists. Because covenants cannot be, well, weaponized.
Dorothee Benz is a lifelong Methodist and a delegate to the 2016 General Conference. She is a founding member of Methodists in New Directions and serves as its national representative. Follow her on Twitter @DrBenz3.
===
Thoughts? Thanks for reading and your shares on social media.
Snap!! No one else could have said this better.
First, the “do no harm” is not the full quote from Wesley. It included something about sin that often gets lost.
Second, I don’t thinkt that opponents to these “monitors” or whatever comes from a desire to speak and say anything and everyhing one desires to say. It is the notion that adult Methodists are so infantile and inept at public discourse that they need to be chaperoned…and I fully agree.
Third, what is it with you Americans and this “safe space” thing? Are you so thin-skinned that you can’t handle tough debate? Aren’t you the people I have always loved as being able to disagree strongly and yet be friends? If our church feels so unsafe for people of different views that we need playground monitors who “tell the teacher” every time someone’s feelings are hurt or whatever…have we not lost the battle already?
Let’s be adult, debate strongly, find God’s will and move on together even if we lost the struggle.
First, if a church member was calling a black church member a n*****, would you say “it’s just tough debate?” If a church member said women voting would lead to bestiality, would you say “they’re just debating strongly.” Likewise, LGBT Methodists have been called fags in the bathroom of GC and said they were close to bestiality on the floor of GC. So there’s documented and recorded evidence that when it comes to the LGBT debate, we need to do it better.
Second, you’ve distorted the role of the monitor in the Rule44 process. I sat through this process in January. They sit with the table and report at the end of the round what they heard or saw and how the group could do better for the next round. If they were called “reporters” then that would be more accurate.
While describing your disagreement using a playground metaphor and condescending language feels good to you on this comment, it only exhibits the need for such monitors in the first place. So thank you for “Exhibit A.”
Jeremy, thanks for responding gently, but firmly. Your kind yet honest response prevented me from being uncivil.
Let us all keep in mind that the blog of the Rev. Drew McIntyre is named “Plowshares into Swords.” In other words, he has deliberated twisted a piece of scripture from Isaiah 2:4 about the future kingdom of heaven where swords will be turned into plowshares to proclaim himself one who will destroy with his sword (his words) those who disagree with his definitions of Christianity. Isaiah 2:4 reads in full: “The LORD will mediate between nations and will settle international disputes. They will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will no longer fight against nation, nor train for war anymore.” What a travesty.
Wow, Christy. I hadn’t noticed that (my feed reader doesn’t update blog titles). Looks like I was right. :-/ Too bad.
Yeah. He did a good job of defining himself as a maker of war and hater of peace in the blog title.
To be fair, he didn’t twist Isaiah, but rather chose the language of Joel 3. While we may argue that regrettably, Rev. McIntyre seems spoiling for a fight, he didn’t misappropriate Scripture to do it.
Brilliant, just brilliant!
Quite some time ago I came across a little book by Randy Alcorn “The Grace and Truth Paradox.” While I know Alcorn is not renowned for being anything close to progressive (he is generally too conservative for my taste), that book is fantastic, and perhaps should be required reading for all involved in this discussion.
Interesting to read this right before a Web training for the small group facilitators!
I printed the guidelines for conversation and showed it to my wife. She initially thought I was playing some sort of joke. After I convinced her that it wasn’t she immediately shared that with a friend and fellow delegate to annual conference. The part about asking people their preferred pronouns was interesting. They are hoping that our conference does not adopt the same guidelines.
This isn’t kindergarten. Why do we even need such guidelines? If we can’t talk openly and honestly with each other then maybe we should go our separate ways.
The problem comes when “open and honest” means that gays are compared to people who have sex with dogs, then perhaps we need someone to tell them that’s not okay.
This is a step towards having a restorative justice dialogue. I find that to be more in keeping with the character of God than Robert’s Rules of Order.
I have been ruminating on Acts 16:23-40. In this scripture, the oppressed (Paul and Silas) and the jailer are healed together when they come together around a common table, share stories, and worship. That sounds way more Rule 44 than Robert’s Rules where there is a winner or loser. When might makes right, or our plowshares are hammered into swords, we are separated in a sinful way forgoing the reconciliation and restoration our collective salvation brings.
Does “safe,” in this context, mean “safe from being bludgeoned to death with axe handles,” or “safe from being reminded that other people disagree with you,” or something else somewhere in the middle?
When you use the same word to describe a very broad range of meanings, it becomes difficult to have a rational discussion.
I believe Dr. Benz says what safe space means here: “Asking people to be respectful and avoid stereotypes.”
Not very difficult to understand.