Bishop Oliveto is retained but the future is murky.
From the cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the laziness that is contented with half truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Good Lord, deliver us.-Kenyan prayer
A Glimpse of New Methodism
Back in 2014, this blog published about Methodism 2.0 (here’s a 2015 followup), outlining how United Methodism’s structure allows for patchwork advances in LGBTQ Inclusion. These regions which allowed more flexibility in service by and for LGBTQ people were able to thrive a little bit more than the rest of Methodism which continued to denigrate and dehumanize LGBTQ people. Both forms of Methodism co-exist in discomfort but realization they cannot stop the other from doing what they are doing.
The stark difference between these two understandings of Methodism reached new heights in July 2016 when Rev. Karen Oliveto was elected as the first out gay Bishop in The United Methodist Church. That happened because she was a qualified candidate, a supermajority of delegates voted for her, and that the Western Jurisdiction alone elects their bishops, without interference by other jurisdictions.
And we’ve seen the effects of New Methodism: what United Methodism looks like when it sheds its anti-gay animus. It looks like regions exploring new ways of being church. It looks like regions with highest rates of church attendance and being led by a spirit-filled leader in Bishop Oliveto (indeed, all our bishops), and when it fails, falling forward towards discovering what the church after Christendom looks like.
Life looked tedious and frustrating at times, but this model of a diverse church was reaching the mission field and helping us see what was next for Methodism and that there was nothing to fear from an inclusive church. Bishop Oliveto was a bishop, the sky did not fall, and Disciples were being made.
Marred by The South and the Judicial Council
Unfortunately, that vision of Methodism has suffered a serious setback due to the Southern legal challenge to Bishop Oliveto’s consecration and the efforts by Boards of Ordained Ministry. Much analysis was done over the weekend when I was out of data range at a United Methodist camp with 54 of my local church members, so I won’t repeat them.
But in short, the Judicial Council, while retaining the ordination of LGBTQ clergy and the election and consecration of Bishop Oliveto (for now), closed the door on future out gay bishops and on Boards of Ordained Ministry by requiring them to inquire into the bedroom actions and marital statuses of candidates for ministry or episcopacy. What that means is that even if the Boards of Ordained Ministry and the Jurisdictional delegates are of one mind, their autonomy in deciding from the pool of candidates “in good standing” (which is how our law reads) now have to add-on this new legislation authored by the Judicial Council.
While the clear argument was on the side of retaining Bishop Oliveto, while the side upholding the Discipline was being put on trial, all that really matters was that six members of the nine decided that the unity in diversity model of United Methodism ought not stand when it comes to LGBTQ people.
Judicial Nullification of Regional Authority
This problem with this type of judicial decision is that it exacerbates the fragmentation of United Methodism by revoking regional autonomy and authority. As the 1960 Jurisdictional Study reported:
[The Jurisdictional system] was always the sine qua non [essential element] of the Plan of Union. Histories of Methodist Union which have come to the attention of the Commission have been in substantial agreement on this point. To them, the Jurisdictional system represented a position midway between the principle of General Conference supremacy on one hand, and the separation from 1844 to 1939 on the other.” (Jurisdictional Study, 1960, page 1672)
The basic unit of United Methodism is the Annual Conference. The highest unit of United Methodism is the Constitution and the General Conference. But the only unit of United Methodism that stands between a proud global church and a divided sectarian church is a strong Jurisdictional system, as envisioned by Bishop Moore at the 1939 Uniting Conference, affirmed by study in 1960, and supported throughout all the 1968-1972 polity overhauls. The Jurisdiction’s sole authority in election of bishops had been tested again and again since 1939 and never was found wanting until now.
This internecine conflict from one jurisdiction to another now threatens (or hopes) to render us asunder. By removing the powers of the jurisdiction and centralizing them in the General Conference by removing the ability of the jurisdiction to consider their pool of candidates, we have lost one of the defining marks of Methodism that allowed it to find its way into every nook and cranny of the country and world. It is this system of regional authority that allowed us to be the second largest Protestant denomination in America and a powerhouse on the world stage.
So…was it worth it?
Clear and Present Focus
The forces who want to seize upon the last gasp of anti-gay sentiment while the Baby Boomers have power (the last generation that is majority against LGBTQ inclusion) have prevailed in myriad ways in recent months:
- The Judicial Council was willing to sacrifice the originating principle of regional authority in order to remove a gay bishop.
- The Council of Bishops Executive Committee wanted to expedite the removal of Bishop Oliveto by requesting that her court case be heard in October 2016, less than 60 days after she began her episcopal ministry and before she could prove herself. They were turned down, which is why this happened in April 2017.
- Rev. Keith Boyette, one of the legal minds behind and arguing for the removal of Oliveto–as well as every anti-gay decision of the Judicial Council from 2000-2008–was just elected as President of the Wesleyan Covenant Association, a renewal group dedicated to preserving global LGBTQ Exclusion in The United Methodist Church and, failing that, siphoning off the capital, property, and people from The UMC to a new Wesleyan denomination. Rev. Boyette also authored two petitions (1,2) advocating for schism at General Conference 2016, so you can bet the WCA agenda is now both/and.
These are difficult times in an already fragmented church, mirroring the culture of polarization and distrust of difference that American culture is experiencing in the Trump era. It’s sad to see culture embed itself so deeply into a Church that is supposed to rest on Scripture and Spirit, not spite and spittle.
What comes next
There’s a few things that will happen now.
- Bishop Oliveto will continue to serve the Mountain Sky area as the other legal challenges are manageable. How she was able to travel to so many churches in her region in a short time and be cheerful about it is beyond me!
- The Western Jurisdiction will decide how to respond. While some may want to schism off, I hope the leadership chooses a graceful response–and note that the Wesleyan Covenant Association wants the West to leave, so why should we?
- The Wesleyan Covenant Association, at their April meeting in Memphis, Tennessee, celebrated the closing of yet another opportunity for LGBTQ people. But if the rest of The UMC is as anti-gay as the WCA…then why leave? It will be Interesting to see how they will use it in marketing. “Join us, we are just as anti-gay as The UMC–but we will be better at it.” Naah, too lengthy.
Light in the Darkness
It’s a dark time for the courageous and effective diversity of United Methodism, but there’s light on the horizon.
As sunlight shines and lays bare the anti-gay animus present at all levels of United Methodism, as local people are spurred to speak up about their LGBTQ child, friend, neighbor, and sibling, and as pastors and ministry leaders see more and more young people avoid their church doors, this turning of the mirror on us looks really ugly. It’s bad for everyone when you practice exclusion and expulsion. Like a wounded body that receives a last surge of adrenaline, it will look like all is well in Christendom, but without the gays to scapegoat, these types of churches celebrating now will eat each other later.
Only when the last gay has been excised from United Methodism will we see that we can’t disciple empty pews. A pyrrhic victory like this one with a short-term gain in animus and hubris is no gain for United Methodism at all–much less the Reign of God.
My prayers are with Bishop Oliveto and all those who support and oppose her. My prayers are with pastors and ministry leaders as you try to practice grace and courage in your context. And my prayers are for myself, that the fury that seeps through every pixel on this page is channeled towards action for love and grace.
And to every LGBTQ or straight person reading, remember in the words of Mark Miller:
No matter what the Church says, you are a Child of God.
It is always amazing how progressives can blame everybody else for the mess but never accept responsibility for your own contribution to it by deciding to take control of the situation and try to force your perceptions of how the church should be by functioning outside of how the church is designed to work. Yes, there is Jurisdictional autonomy but there is also respecting the work of General Conference, the only thing designated to speak for the church–something you agreed to at ordination. I do not care how you try to frame it, on the other side of the argument what I see is progressives have made it abundantly clear that they have zero respect for the whole church and its processes and you certainly do not know how to live in tension with those who disagree with you. Regardless of your intentions, it is the Western Jurisdiction who threw the gasoline on this smoldering fire. Pushing boundaries comes with consequences. Now buck up and accept the consequences of your actions. And while you are at it start seriously considering that the church as a whole is not ready to buy into what you are peddling and try to figure out how to live within that reality.
“The church as a whole is not ready to buy into what you are peddling and try and figure out how to live in that reality.”
At the crux of Betsy’s argument is respect should be shown for the whole and readiness is a requirement for change.
The first part I agree with. Respect for the whole body of Christ is important. This has scriptural basis. One part of the body cannot claim more importance than another.
The second part is more problematic for me scripturally. Jesus taught a path and painted picture of a “kingdom not of this world”.It was an unrealistic picture of God’s reign and there was no readiness for it. Yet, that is why it is gospel. For me, it is the progress made toward Jesus’ vision that makes this a Christian movement. I believe inclusion is at the center of Jesus’ vision for the world.
So the tension is between respect and movement. That is the crux for me of the predicament laid before our leaders. So of course, there is pain in this tension. That pain/dislocation is also part of the good news.
Respectfully,
Mantu Joshi
Very gracious. Thanks Mantu.
Oh my. The idea encapsulated in “you certainly do not know how to live in tension with those who disagree with you” must be challenged. On the contrary it seems to me that the progressive side has a good deal of experience in coexisting with others. Unless I’m mistaken, it’s the traditionalists who always try to separate the two, either by suppressing or pushing out those with whom they disagree or threatening to break off themselves. For all the imagery of those who “try to force [their] perceptions of how the church should be”, it’s generally the traditionalists who file complaints and initiate legal proceedings.
I don’t buy the notion that accepting LGBTQ Christians into full membership and connection in TUMC is really the distraction that many complain it to be. It certainly doesn’t have to be that way. It isn’t in our congregation. We have no affiliation to the Confessing or Reconciling movements but we do have an active mission program and a pretty decent community outreach. We can serve Christ a lot better when we don’t spend time filing charges against others.
Well said! The WCA and others put the Discipline ahead of scripture.
You know – I attended that Memphis event and it was not anti-gay. There was not celebration of the decision. There was acknowledged grief at where we are at in the church. You just lied. I hope you understand that. You just lied about other people in the UMC. Why do you even want to be a part of the church if you despise such a large portion of it to lie about it?
I would call out anyone for lying and slandering – whether they be conservative, liberal, progressive, whatever. The outright falsehood and slander that you churn out here is mind blowing. Man, you need to quit it. We are all going to be held accountable for everything that we say and do.
Hi Josh, from a rough transcript that one of my people supplied from Keith Boyette’s speech:
“Reaffirmed that jurisdictions can not engage in actions that violate BOD (scattered applause)”
It may not have been applause in your corner of the 850 participants. But it was in other corners.
Yeah, well . . . “scattered applause” is not exactly jubilant celebration.
You slander the WCA as an organization dedicated to excluding LGBT folks but, as someone who actually attended the meeting, that sure did NOT seem to be the focus at all to me. The main thing that I heard in conversations was, “I am tired of this bickering and constant fight; I just want to re-center on mission, evangelism, and doing the work of God.”
You make it sound like a bunch of hateful bigots with a central desire to beat down the oppressed. But all I saw was a bunch of tired people who are trying to find a reason to not walk away from the UMC and join a church that has a focus and leaders who agree on doctrine and mission.
Like I said, man, you need to quit all this propaganda crap. You spin stuff worse than Fox news. I think you are going to look back – years from now – on many of the things you wrote here and say, “Damn, I was an idiot! I shouldn’t have let an agenda lead me to slander and misrepresent.” Dude, it’s not worth it. Be real, be honest, and live according to your convictions . . . whatever the price is.
Hi Josh,
The majority culture (of which you are a part, it seems) rarely understands the effect or the impact of their words and actions on the minority culture. As a progressive in the UMC, I’m in the minority culture (even though I’m straight, and not LGBTQ minority), I hear things so differently than you present. To say we need to focus on these things and stop the conversation about LGBTQ stuff is to accept the status quo–which is not good to LGBTQ people. To say let’s stop the conversation IS to take a position of violence and exclusion to LGBTQ people, no matter how nice it sounds.
– Watch the WCA promotional video. It says some progressives don’t believe God is good. How is that not misrepresenting?
– Watch the WCA video on “The Bible is True” and see how the progressives are compared to petulant children who don’t know what they need and follow their whims. How does that feel if it was said to you?
– You remember when Helen asked her question about LGBTQ people at WCA in Memphis? She was told that she is a sinner, but that’s okay, God works through sinners. I bet that felt pretty good to you. But that’s not how a progressive would receive it: being told that the call of God, which the church previously denied to women and persons of color, is denied to an LGBTQ person who is made to be like an unrepentant adulterer or alcoholic. That’s not comparable.
In short, while it sounds nice to you, so did the arguments against women in ministry seem nice at the time, and we are horrified by them today.
Well, here’s the problem: I, as a thinking evangelical, have tried to have conversations with those who holding to the belief that homosexuality should not be seen as a sin, or at least, certain practices and forms of homosexuality should not be seen as sin. But I have not been able, in online communication or in personal communication, to have a serious conversation that deals with the assumptions and beliefs behind the arguments.
For example, I have brought up the assumptions found within the arguments put forth by the pro-LGBT side that our sexual urges are what DEFINE us as human beings. I would think that being created in the image of God is what gives us our truest and most fundamental identity. But I have yet to get any feedback yet. I get silence, blank stares, or some argument that doesn’t have anything to do with I’m saying.
I have brought up the assumption of genetic determinism that is prevalent in pro-LGBT arguments. You know, the tired old argument that “I was born this way.” I have asked them, “So, you are saying that your genetics determine WHO you are? You have no free will? You have no choice in your behavior?” My father was an alcoholic and, as an adult, I took up his alcoholism. There is a lot of evidence for alcoholism being genetically passed on in some capacity. Am I supposed to embrace alcoholism as my identity? Are any urges that arise within us supposed to be alright because they are “our” urges? How do we determine what urges we should say “yes” to and what urges we should say “no” to? Also, how does the assumption of genetic determinism dialogue with the doctrine of original sin? You know, Wesley was pretty high on that doctrine. The doctrine of original sin says that all of our being has been warped in some way by sin and that all human beings have this deformation of the heart, mind, and will. What’s the interplay between doctrine and science here? Shouldn’t we try to reason all these things out? After all, we do use the quadrilateral for our thinking, don’t we?
Again . . . the sound of crickets. I could go and on with my experiences of talking to pro-LGBT people about such things and being met with confusion or, usually, belligerent anger.
When two sides have gotten to the point where they cannot even communicate with each other without being angry, it’s time to split up. I am a pastor and seen marriages that have come to this point. I believe that we need to live unhindered in our convictions for a while. Maybe we will come back together later in time. I don’t know but this current situation of attacking each other and demonizing each other is totally wrong. You know that just like I do. Let’s all quit this and do something better.
You have that nullification thing backwards. It was the Western Jurisdiction that was trying to nullify a policy that was clearly articulated in our BoD. The Judicial Council simply reiterated that policy established by GC cannot be over turned at a lower level. It now remains with the Western Jurisdiction to figure out what to do with an unlawfully elected bishop. My guess is they will keep her right where she is and the schism will begin.
“unlawfully elected bishop”
From JC Decision No. 1341:
“To the extent that it pertains to the process of nomination, election, and assignment, the Petition is improper.”
From the section “II. Election:”
“Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to review the Petition as far as it pertains to the episcopal election.”
http://www.umc.org/decisions/71953
“Petition is improper” and “lack jurisdiction” had nothing to do with the legality or illegality of the election but everything to do with whether or not the South Central Jurisdiction had standing to petition the election made by the Western Jurisdiction. The Judicial Council merely ruled that SCJ did not have standing to petition the WJ’s nomination, election, or assignment of a bishop but did have standing on the consecration. Logic says that the nomination, election, and assignment were entirely improper, but because the SCJ had no standing to petition the Judicial Council on those matters were improperly before them and thus had no jurisdiction to review them.
The lack of authority to administer justice does not nullify the propriety or impropriety of the action in question.
OK. Lawfully elected. Unlawfully consecrated. I stand corrected. Still the distinction is somewhat meaningless to me.
Kevin, you were correct when you said “unlawfully elected.” Just not enforceable by the Judicial Council because they would not review that specific action. We’ll have to see how far the Western Jurisdiction’s review of her office goes. I’m sure the Las Vegas odds would favor a “just resolution” with minimal consequences.
I am stunned at Jeremy’s constant lying about the WCA, I am one of the founding members and very little of what he says is true. The main emphasis in the WCA, in my opinion, is sharing the love of God, pursuing scriptural holiness and how we can be better disciples. I remember one of the African Bishops saying that the main issue is sharing the life changing Gospel.
I study church growth with a passion and your figures are flawed, growth does not happen with a progresive gospel.If we look at the decline in the New York Conference. In fact conservative contemporary churches are growing dramatically.
I walked around “Old town: Portland a few weeks ago and visited with several people in the bars, people wanted to discuss faith and truth. They wanted to know about God, Portland is ripe for a church plant.