Straight ally clergy will use their privilege to deny harm done to LGBTQ clergy through disciplinary actions.
Letter of Solidarity
Over 1550 clergy allies stand in covenant with LGBTQ clergy: refuse to allow more harm from Discipline actions.
From the letter of support:
In 2012, Bishop Melvin Talbert called the church to recognize the unchanging Gospel call to love, reconciliation, and justice. Bishop Talbert unswervingly challenged the church to place loyalty to the Gospel above all else. In so doing, he ushered in a movement of Biblical Obedience wherein thousands of United Methodists committed to be faithful to the spirit of love and justice consistently expressed in our holy scriptures and through the life of Jesus Christ.
Today, regardless of the actions of General Conference, we do just this. There is much in The Book of Discipline that is beautiful, life-giving, and grounded in scriptural holiness. But the current language prohibiting LGBTQI people from serving as ordained clergy is discriminatory, unjust, unChristlike, and inconsistent with both holy scripture and the best of our United Methodist heritage. Scores of our LGBTQI clergy colleagues have courageously declared their insistence on serving openly as ordained leaders in the United Methodist Church. We applaud this action; and, at the request of our LGBTQI colleagues, stand in solidarity with those who publicly “come out.”
Their letter includes the following commitments:
- If a clergy person is removed from their charge for being LGBTQI, we will refuse to fill their pulpit, serve in their stead or accept an appointment to said charge so as to demand that the charge continue to be filled by our colleague.
- If serving on the Board of Ordained Ministry, we will examine all candidates for ministry and make decisions of their process regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity.
- If a complaint is filed against a colleague for being LGBTQI, we will not support any action to place our colleague on leave of absence as some bishops have sought.
Upholding the Covenant
Clergy have to choose between covenants at times. And in this situation, we see that the clergy have chosen their spoken vow of covenant to their colleagues as a priority above the supposed covenants demanded by faceless others outside their borders.
More and more clergy are saying we stand in covenant with each other and know how important this is in The UMC.
The signer’s actions come with some risk: to refuse an appointment can remove them from consideration, and to stand against a Bishop in official capacity is to risk being removed from that role the next year.
And yet they are saying clearly that straight allies will use their privilege to deny harm done to LGBTQ clergy through disciplinary actions.
When covenants conflict, one does not have to look far into the biblical record to see that Christ always chose the person over the policy, the people instead of the Sabbath. I guess that’s why there’s a Biblical Obedience movement in the UMC: because it turns out when you are faithful to the Bible–and your faithfulness is held accountable by others–deciding which covenant to uphold at which time becomes quite clear.
The Great Divide within United Methodism
I’m thankful for these clergypersons who stand with their colleagues. We’ve seen support from ecumenical partners (like the UCC and The Episcopal Church) for change, but this shows the great divide within United Methodism.
The only question is whether folks who use Covenant as a weapon recognize that this is the Covenant in practice, and a practiced Covenant is what will transform The United Methodist Church for the better. May we all stand with LGBTQ clergy this day.
Thoughts?
Yep! I’ve often insisted, from an LGBT-affirming perspective, every ordained person violates either their baptism/membership covenant by not “resisting evil, injustice, and oppression”– a life-long rejection of an LGBT couple’s relationship (which is the core problem with not allowing any same-sex blessings at all) is certainly a violation of this covenant. Or, clergy violate clergy covenant by conducting a same-sex blessing– all clergy must choose. Of course, if clergy are only in covenant with people in their annual conference order, and no one objects, is it really a violation at all?
Similarly, yes, no doubt the incredible homophobia (and transphobia) at General Conference is straining our current full-communion relationship with the ELCA, and may jeopardize the progress The UMC is making in that direction with other churches, including the ones you reference.
I did not get to sign the letter, and there are probably hundreds if not thousands more that would. But I also think it needs to be said that we will preach justice in our own pulpits- for full inclusion, and to refuse methods of “punishment” for clergy who act in civil disobedience. I told my church yesterday, it’s time for the Church to Prophesy.
Here is the link if you would like to add your name, I’m certain they will update it with a new number of signatures.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/10Q5rtRK8LXeDsFULVy0rzzE2KFW-6VIfMWqFpZV5wjA/viewform?mc_cid=0ae316ddf1&mc_eid=2c8e310e14
First, I agree with this stand. Given many traditionalists’ refusal to even acknowledge that there is a legitimate difference of opinion on the issue, much less agree to discuss the issue in a manner that shows respect for the views of others, what choice is left?
A minor point though: I wouldn’t say Jesus chose, “the people instead of the Sabbath.” It is a popular misconception that Jesus broke the Sabbath, but there is no evidence that Jesus himself understood his actions as ‘breaking the Sabbath.’ Given the plurality of views on Torah observance in Second Temple Judaism, some of the different groups would accuse each other of breaking such-and-such commands all the time. The Essenes, for example didn’t share the same calendar as the Pharisees or Sadducees, so when the Sabbaths and festivals would fall on their respective calendars wouldn’t necessarily line up (not to mention that the Essenes had much stricter views of Sabbath observance). Anyways, I think your basic point is valid, but I would just emphasize that Jesus understood Sabbath observance in light of Leviticus 19:18b, or to put it differently, that he understood Sabbath observance according to the ‘spirit of the law.’ In any case, I think your basic point is valid. To Jesus, people were more important than literalistic understandings of Torah.
Nice exegetical corrective.
Thanks Katie, you have greatly expanded my understanding of Sabbath in the past. I am already in your debt there.
How many Africans signed?
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity
How can we add our names?
Is the list of these people available to the public?
If you click through to the link in the article above to the post that this is drawn from, you will see our names listed for any who choose to look.
The peace and joy of Christ be with you, Rev. Dr. Robertson
I doubt this will be printed because you want words that tickle your ears. You want your way and will settle for nothing else. The people that you say are discriminating have had a dialogue on this issue for 45 years. Do you think that your logic hasn’t been heard? It would be far easier to give in than to stand up for the truth of God’s Word. We want to obey it. We have no problems with sinners coming to church; we are all sinners. But once you accept Jesus as Lord of your life you cannot continue to walk in sin. Sex is our society’s biggest sin today, whether heterosexual or homosexual. If you are engaged in sex outside of Scriptural parameters you are in sin. Jesus still loves you but you are grieving His heart. Who do you want to serve? Jesus or your own sexual desires?
“Sex is our society’s biggest sin today”? Jesus said a great deal more about caring for our needy neighbors and loving one another than he did about sex. Let’s talk about greed, apathy, and avarice, for starters.
Actually, no I don’t think the logic has been heard. In my experience it is very rare for people on either side of this issue to really understand where the other side is coming from. There are also a plurality of views on either side, so you may not get the same answer every time you ask to understand where your opposition is coming from. Of course that assumes anyone bothers to ask at all. When I look at what is going on, the only accurate descriptor I can find is “groupthink.” It would be all too easy to accuse traditionalists of groupthink, but I believe progressives are sometimes guilty of that as well. At least the proposed alternative discernment process would have had a chance to cut through some of the psychological manipulation (i.e. groupthink) used by both sides. Unfortunately that didn’t work out so well at General Conference.
If anyone thinks they have a good understanding of the issue of LGBTQ inclusion, they should talk with someone who has an opposing view. If you can explain to the opposing side what they believe in such a way that they agree your explanation is accurate, without resorting to a “straw man,” then you might be said to actually understand the issue. Most of the time I see “straw man” arguments, I suspect, because people stop asking others what they believe when they come across a view that is easy for them to counter. There are some pretty sophisticated and nuanced views on both sides, but you have to look for them. So no, not all traditionalists are fundamentalists, nor have all progressives forsaken Biblical authority (I’d have thought in the Wesleyan tradition, with an emphasis on the quadrilateral, that would be a given that neither descriptor of “fundamentalist” or the opposite is always true, but I see those types of accusations all the time).
Amen