An anonymous clergywoman writes the following in response to the question “Why don’t you just leave?” asked by Traditionalists seeking a denomination without progressives or LGBTQ persons.
Here’s her answer:
===
You Loved Me First
By: Anonymous
In the hours and days after this General Conference, I’ve found myself disgusted with false equivalencies between traditionalists and progressives. Many bishops, instead of taking a clear stand, chose to speak of two near-equal sides harming one another. False. Progressives came to the conference with a hand outstretched, with plans that said we still needed one another. They came begging and pleading, not for a liberal church, but for a unified one that made space for everyone. Traditionalists came with a view that progressives had nothing of value to give this church and sought to cut all ties through a punitive plan that would force us out. These are not equal in any way. One came with cruelty, the other with sacrifice.
When asked why they are so unwilling to make space for us, many traditionalists answer with questions like, “Why did you join a church you didn’t agree with? Why do you join and try to change us?” These questions hurt me deeply because it’s akin to asking a son why he joined a family. I didn’t join a church with whom I disagreed. This church is the church of my birth. This church loved me first. It claimed me at my baptism. This church adopted me. It raised me. It formed me. It confirmed me. And now, this church does not want the daughter it raised. We’ve been rejected by the mothers and fathers of this church and it didn’t happen overnight. This process of rejection is laborious, painful and ongoing.
I wasn’t surprised by the outcomes or arguments at this General Conference. Oh how I wanted to be! I wanted so much for our mothers and fathers to open their arms, extend their hands, and wipe away tears. And this church taught me to hope in the power of the Holy Spirit and the power of love and vulnerability and so, I came, like others, with all the hope I could muster. I knew the votes would be a razor thin margin–I know my parents well.
So many groups within our family and beyond our family worked for years to make sure that thin margin holds fast. Boards of Ordained Ministry stacked by bishops with conservative voices, increased support for very conservative non-UM seminaries, strong slates of delegates, promises of support to those in the Central Conferences, training people how to vote before General Conference begins, para-church organizations like Young Life training our youth in Biblical literalism while withdrawing support from young people’s ministries within the UMC, hiring youth workers who come from Southern Baptist traditions, and using confirmation curriculum from more conservative sources than the UMC. Desperately, our parents try to raise sons and daughters they want to keep and consistently their discipleship creates sons and daughters they need to throw out.
It couldn’t be that our church raises faithful, thoughtful children who, when wrestling with Scripture and praxis, find the stances of the church aren’t quite fitting anymore. It couldn’t be these evangelical sons and daughters are being moved by the power of the Holy Spirit. It couldn’t be these recalcitrant children are clinging to their Wesleyan heritage and the love they knew since their baptisms. No. These children were led astray at some point, are doing harm, and must be aborted.
The problem is, dear mother church, dear father church, you produce children like me. Children you call deformed or abominations. But it is not because of a flaw in boards of ordained ministries or seminaries or youth leaders or curriculum or general agencies or the Social Principles. You have to work so hard to keep us from growing up this way because your polity and praxis, your foundation in prevenient, justifying, and sanctifying grace, your very General Rules and Articles of Religion, produce us.
As you look us in the eyes and vote us out, as you praise God with our songs and our voices while breaking our spirits, as you accept our tithes and fund organizations trying to remove us from your presence, we fight back, with the language you gave us. With the faith you raised in us. The love of Jesus you taught us saved us.
Thank you broken Body. You gave me my baptism. You called me a child of God. You did this. You brought me in. And if you are staying Wesleyan, I contend that no matter what your rules are around exclusion, you will continue to give birth to and raise children like me. We aren’t going away–even when you vote to bind our hearts for justice and call it love. Your harming us, your breaking up families, your pushing, doesn’t make us leave. We will keep being born.
I’m United Methodist. I love who we are and what we believe. I’m not able to simply join another church because I don’t fit anywhere else. And so, I keep showing up to a battle already lost, with arms outstretched and tears on my face, forcing you to make me leave. I don’t turn my back on you. I am always hoping, one day you will love me the way you did at my baptism. When my arms were outstretched and tears were on my face and you embraced me, calling me Child of God.
===
Your Turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
The premise in the first paragraph is totally flawed in describing the two sides. With all due respect, the “olive branch” that was held out was covered with poisonous thorns. First, it would have codified the definition of “marriage” in our guiding social principles as being between “two people.” That was not a compromise but a totally abhorrent principle for traditionalists/conservatives to accept. The OCP provided little compromise worthy of consideration. While it looked good to liberal progressives, this sector grossly underestimated the level of distrust and felt disrespect the traditionalists and conservatives have felt and experienced these past several years. The deliberate defiance and flaunting of the BOD by the Western Jurisdictional Council in electing Karen Oliveto as bishop was the final nail in the proverbial coffin for traditionalists and conservatives. That move galvanized this segment of the denomination. And then, with the OCP, for bishops to come back after that defiance and try to tell the traditionalists and conservatives to “trust us and we will watch out for your interests, too” was a slap in the face. No, the OCP was inherently flawed from the start and the bishops knew this, but they tried to hide that reality. The OCP was never about compromising.
Your statement, “First, it would have codified the definition of “marriage” in our guiding social principles as being between “two people.” That was not a compromise but a totally abhorrent principle for traditionalists/conservatives to accept,” I experience as a Gay man as telling me that I am a totally abhorrent person. Try as you might to separate my Sexual Orientation from me as a person won’t fly. One’s sexual orientation involves the deepest feelings that a person might have, such as emotional needs for connection. Telling me that I can’t meet these needs in the way that I am constituted I take as a deep rejection of me as a person. You might claim that that is not your intention, but that is the effect of using the term “abhorrent.” I don’t see why many persons believe that a person’s deepest feelings should be so discounted and maligned as abhorrent.
He’s also misrepresenting what would have been written into the social principles in the OCP. While it would have said “marriage between two people,” Tim conveniently ignores the second part which would have stated, “traditionally a man and a woman.”
The idea being that you can “take or leave” tradition, so to speak.
Our deepest needs for connection are met in our relationship with God and not with other human beings. One of the lies that our modern society tells us is that our sexuality is at the heart of who we are. We are never ceasing spiritual beings, created for an intimate relationship with God.
Easy to say for someone who can “legally” have any kind of human connection he wants. There’s an “out” provided for straight people that is categorically denied for LGBT people. That’s the injustice.
I’m sorry that you are hurting. Please try to understand that the traditionalists have no intent or desire to hurt anyone (at least the vast majority don’t, there are always a few on all sides). But we also saw the OCP as no compromise; bishops defying the BOD, regardless of the reason, tells us that there would never be peace with that plan – there would always be the determination to force those who are conservative in their sexuality views to accept and allow same sex marriages and practicing homosexuals as clergy. It would have been forced, and you all know it. That is what led to the distrust and determination to not support it.
If the vote had gone in favor of the OCP, traditionalist would have left rather than continue to fight and disrupt the denomination. Nor would they have scolded those who voted for the OCP as though they were children.
There is a division that, at this point in time, is too great to cross. Those who are unhappy with the legitimate vote of the delegates (which was really only the decision to uphold something that has been the rule for over 40 years) should go and start their own version of Methodism. There is no shame in that, and it is the opportunity to create what fits your vision. And I would hope that those who follow would be happy and at peace. But attempting to force people to accept your choices (and I’m not talking about sexual orientation, etc.) NEVER works. Part as family that needs a break, but not a divorce – with love and sadness, with a hope for the future.
God bless.
I am so happy to see this. We should not give up and leave but stay and assert ourselves.
Bravo!!!! Thank you for your words.
Not all of claim the UMC as our birth church. Some of us came from birth churches that were even more repressive…me, the Catholic Church In which I was defined as “intrinsically disordered”. Coming to the UMC some 14 years ago, in fact being asked to join notwithstanding my disordered state, I felt being merely incompatible with Christian teaching was a step up!
Pretty sad, isn’t it, and desparate perhaps. Well, I was…and still am.
The church was welcoming and warm, until talk turned to becoming a reconciling congregation nearly 6 years ago. Then things changed. Oh, we ultimately voted to remain a reconciling congregation (during a tense and upsetting Charge Conference one Sunday afternoon).
I became outspoken about the subordinate status that the LGBTQ community had. Our membership pledge (that we agreed to when joining long after birth) said we would give our service, our gifts and our presence…period, with no discount for being excluded from the ministry or from being prohibited from enjoying the marriage tires from a UMC pastor or in a UMC church. Not fair.
There wasn’t much talk about the GC or its ramifications (regardless what if anything was adopted). I studied it but no one I talked to seemed particularly interested. What stood out was the concern that there would be schism, and that must be avoided.
Tim’s comments above echo mine. The progressives were willing to “compromise”. But that compromise would have been on the backs of the LGBTQ community again. Our congregation should have had a Plan B in the works, as a contingency. After all, this GC has been in the works for 3 years; and it’s been over a year since word was out concerning the options before it. But nothing here, except wait, Adam Hamilton is working on a plan…stay tuned – and plesse, keep giving and serving and coming.
Similar to your comparison of the United Methodist with the Roman Catholic stand, United Methodists might be ahead of Southern Baptists where there is absolutely no discussion, debate or dialogue on this issue. At least people can disagree with our stand, but perhaps outright violation of the rules is not tolerated. There is always lively debate and discussion on Homosexuality at every United Methodist General Conference. When the Southern Baptist Convention meets, there is absolutely no discussion on the Gay issue.
Very well stated. I am a life long Methodist. I learned about the church history in Sunday School, MYF, church camp. I went away for times but you always welcomed me back. Through the Emmaus movement you taught me all about Grace. This past General Conference was extremely ungracious. I feel that the only thing John Wesley would recognize now, is the sentiment of the Anglican Church of his day, “We do not want that type of people in our church”. I’m not gay, but I love shellfish, pork, football on Saturday and Sunday as well as wearing mixed fabric clothing frequently. I’m glad that I belong to a congregation that believes and lives out the credo, “Open Minds, Open Hearts, Open Doors”. Seems the majority of the delegates forgot!
It may be ironic, but I am gay, but I don’t eat Pork or shellfish. But I also don’t eat beef, chicken or fish with fins and scales which were the permissible meats listed in Leviticus 11. I just don’t like the way animals are treated in animal agriculture. I agree that what Leviticus states about a certain mode of sex between males was banned because it was considered to be ritually impure, just like pork and shellfish were considered unclean and actually also an abomination and to be loathed! I don’t abstain from meat for purity reasons, rather my own personal ethics. Christians are not required to keep ritual purity laws, but it is purely optional what we do with them. Christians can eat any kind of meat they want or not eat any kind at all, just like Paul stated in Romans 14.
I am a UM woman pastor. I came into the denomination when I fell in love with the Theology in Seminary. I was very conservative and fully supported the Book of Discipline at my ordination. But Ministry and my brothers and sisters in the church I have shaped my theology once again. I now understand that the wording in our Book of Discipline is damaging and hurtful b/c it supports a misinterpretation of the scriptures in their original context.
If Jesus is good news He is good news to everyone. The gay, the straight, the questioning, the sinful, the righteous: we all have various sins to confess. Who we were created to be is not one of them. Thanks be to God, our Theology of Grace shows that love covers all of it. Because I have discovered gay saints in each of my churches, I have learned what was originally taught about homosexuality to be false. We should always, everywhere, condemn selfish abusive acts upon our sexuality: gay and straight. And we should affirm love when it is self-sacrificial and seeking to glorify God, gay and straight.
But the question remains: are we allowed to change the very obvious meaning of Scripture? Do we get to vote on what sins that separated us from God once but we decide don’t do so anymore? The concept of grace covers our sins, which are daily, constant, despite our best efforts. Admitting we sin and want to be better, means throwing ourselves on the mercy of God. Loving people where they are, doesn’t mean we should leave them in a state of sin or ignore it. And that’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it? Is homosexual behavior still a sin, or not? We acknowledge that adultery is a terribly selfish sin that destroys trust and wounds the heart, that dissolute drug and alcohol use is a sin that wounds. We don’t fund study groups on these sins. Henri Nouwen struggled with same-sex attraction and chose to be celibate. I as a straight man and a UMC pastor who came from the LC-MS choose not to commit adultery no matter how tempting. I choose to love my gay friends as God does, with sorrow for their sinfulness while believing that God made them as people who have free will (that’s Wesleyan, right?) and rejoicing in their friendship with me, a sinful man. Even if we did separate as a church, that would not change. God does not change.
The disciples “changed the meaning” of scripture when they voted at the Conference of Jerusalem to allow Gentiles to become Christian without following the entirety of Jewish Law. That example, among many others within even scripture itself, tells me that there is no “plain meaning” of scripture. Rather scripture is always interpreted in the community, which remains open to the idea that perhaps they have MISinterpreted. Even for a long time.
“We acknowledge that adultery is a terribly selfish sin that destroys trust and wounds the heart, that dissolute drug and alcohol use is a sin that wounds.”
And yet gay love is neither selfish, nor does it destroy trust or wound. So the comparison is useless.
The reason this is constantly up for debate is because the meaning of the scripture is not very obvious. We very obviously disagree about the meaning of scripture because we understand it differently. Many of us grew up in this church that taught to take scripture seriously, not literally.
I hope we will be mindful of the messages we are sending others, especially young people, about how relationships work, when to stay and when to go (don’t forget that Jesus was famous for leaving people in the dust off his sandals). The author says that her “parents” in the Church have treated her and other young, progressive folks like children to be abandoned and killed. AND YET, she concludes the letter with this:
“And so, I keep showing up to a battle already lost, with arms outstretched and tears on my face, forcing you to make me leave. I don’t turn my back on you. I am always hoping, one day you will love me the way you did…”
Huh?
Huh? Right back.
You don’t understand those two paragraphs?
My parents hate me . . . But I keep showing up at the family get togethers hoping for the live they showed me as a child
I think this is a bit of a false equivalence. While the metaphor of relationship when it come to individuals’ and the church is often used, it can only be taken so far. An abusive relationship is most often between two people. The church is far more than two people. That concluding quote you included? Can’t anyone picture Jesus saying pretty much the same thing? In Gethsemane? When talking to the Pharisees?
Thank God Jesus didn’t dust off his sandals when dealing with us.
Agreed, the analogy is somewhat unequivalent. As the old saying goes “You can’t choose your family”. One is always linked to kinfolks but a marriage, friendship or organizational affiliation should be discontinued when it no longer is rewarding. Please read Lew Smedes’ writings and you will understand the damage an inappropriate relationship causes, and better yet, the ways to disassociate.
First, let me express thanks to my anonymous sister for her clear words. It is so unfortunate that so many find they are forced to speak anonymously, refrain from speaking, or remain closeted with the gift of love and its accompanying sexuality which God which God gave them. The congregation where I worship suddenly lost two older women members who have given up the fight for inclusion in our church although we have been a Reconciling congregation for more than 25 years in a broader Methodist culture which seeks to reach out with lothat we are justified by faith, only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.ve to persons of all races, languages, immigration statuses or gender orientation. I myself was a closeted gay man until we Queer Clergy signed on to the Love Letter to the church prior to GC2016. At 73 years of age I am no longer worried about the consequences that may accrue as the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA), Good News or others seek to discount my ministry of 50-plus years.
What I find appalling about the assumption to which my beloved sister is responding is that it totally misreads the history and tradion of the Methodist Church, which drew upon Anglicanism’s via media to open the church of Jesus to all regardless of merit or good deeds or personal performance or non-performance. Articles IX and XXI seem especially relevant at this point.
The first rejects works righteous or whether people measure up to some external standard other than the grace of God. It ends with the assertion “that we are justified by faith, only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.” I am pained that proponents of the Tradtional plan are deprived of this comfort and lacking knowledge of this wholesome doctrine. Why did they decide to join a church they did not agree with?
“Article IX — Of the Justification of Man [and Woman!]
“We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith, only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.”
Secondly, the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the English Reformation placed as it still today places — with what sorry results — sexual standards upon clergy which violate personally wholesome lifestyles and both church and society. Both Lutheran and Anglican Reformations repudiated Catholic traditional teaching and made it a matter of adiaphora — I.e., of secondary importance — whether a clergy[man] should marry.
Since 1972 the United Methodist Church has violated the spirit of Article XXI “Of the Marriage of Ministers” by taking away this broad and discretionary ruling. We could somehow accept the idea that “celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage” might be universally applicable from a cisgender and tradional stance against premarital or extramarital sexual relations that gays had to accept because legal civil marriage was closed to them. But now that same-sex marriage is legal in most parts of the English-speaking world and many parts of Europe and Africa and elsewhere, we realize we gays have been duped by a position which now refuses to accept current definitions of civil marriage. As we read Article XXI let us note that according to our church own doctrinal standards whether a clergy (man or woman) marries or remains single is a matter, “as for all other Christians” to be decided “at their own discretion, as they [individually] shall judge the same to serve best to godliness.l
“Article XXI — Of the Marriage of Ministers
“The ministers of Christ are not commanded by God’s law either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage; therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christians, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve best to godliness.”
Again we ought to raise the question with the proponents of the Tradional plan and if rejection of legal marriage as an acceptable state for ministers why they joined a church they did not agree with.
Perhaps it is because they have drawn their standards from some source outside of our United Methodist tradion which is only shared by and known to only a recalcitrant minority in our church, albeit by a majority of GC2019.
Please feel free to check our local congregation’s website which I maintain at Claremontumc.net.
Hello, i am totally and completely behind you as we march forward in love, everthing else besides love is an illusion, as even sin is a man made word, love is the only language God speaks, as an out Gay woman who has been kicked, turned away , and beaten down, i still rise , i was even told after my precious son was killed by a drunk driver that God took hom because of my sexual preference, i was in a rehab in Amarillo Texas , it took time but i see that now as a blessing, because God showed himself to me , and I know in my heart and without doubt he loves me as i am, nothing can change that, i also know people are afraid of what they do not understand, and use FEAR to scare people, in their sick, twisted minds of judgment on an issue they know nothing about because you see you would have to too be gay, there os no way to explain ot, that being said , its their sick issues and bot Gods, we are all egual and oneday thos world will wittness perfect love and being gay is teally only all about loving beyond others imagination, so gor now let them divide, and hate but ANYTHING NOT OF JESUS IS ANTI CHRIST, he taught of Love and this man made battel against gays is a making of man and not God, so love on , stay strong and never hang your head, be. Very Greatful we do mot have hate in our hearts, instead we will pray for these people, for they know not what they do, ots not over by far and God will prevail, all my love Kelly J Wise
I applaud your battle. I empathize with your pain. Yet completely disagree that you can’t leave or should stay. In fact, I believe you must leave. You don’t stay with your abuser. This need to remain is akin to Stockholm Syndrome. You must break the oppressive shackles. There aren’t any amount of past good deeds or pleasant memories that justifies being against equality. I don’t think there is a way to sugar coat this, staying is to place your comfort above your proclaimed objections and convictions. I left a church I had been raised in my entire life. Not only the church, the entire religion. It was uncomfortable. It was difficult. It was the best decision I ever made and I am a much better person for it. The lie that you must stay to fight for a corrupt institution is just that, a lie. You must stand for the voiceless. You must lead by example. You must plant a new tree. You must unequivocally reject hate, bigotry and discrimination.
In other cases, I would agree. But in this case, I worry that if those strong enough to stay keep leaving, the church we love will never change. I am but an ally, I am not hurt directly, only by the knowledge of how much my family is hurting. I cannot fight this alone. I need the leadership of those who are being debated, if they can handle it.
Now, I fully understand people leaving because of this issue, all the pain it is causing. But I also hope for anyone who can stand it to stay and keep up the good work.
Thank You. Much needed
I can’t read all of those comments. I don’t even know if you’ll reach far enough through all of the comments to reach mine, but I want you to know that I was struck by the phrase “I wanted so much for our mothers and fathers to open their arms, extend their hands, and wipe away tears.”
I will happily wipe away tears when my own tears let me see you more clearly. I’m a cisgender white male who has a ton of privilege. My church was challenged to “Imagine No Racism,” but it seems we cannot see a world without racism or sexism.
I am not your father, but I am your brother. I am very sorry for what has happened. I will keep working to stop it from continuing.