A word about this post: Yes, it's controversial. Yes, some of you will probably disagree strongly with what I say. Please feel free to comment; please feel free to discuss differing opinions. HOWEVER, please be respectful in your comments. The goal of this blog entry is not to hurt specific groups of people or make people angry.
DeLyn is one of the music team members at General Conference, played the drums for us during the Young People's Address, and has sung several solos here at GC. Here is her story.
"Even I must admit: I looked pathetic. I arrived early for my meeting with my District Committee, excited to share some of my ideas about the Church of the Future that I had been dreaming up with my colleagues. I was seeking certification of my candidacy, and had been a declared candidate for two years. I was nervous about whether I would be able to articulate the answers to the questions being asked. What if they ask about my beliefs about substitutionary atonement or bodily resurrection or inclusive God-language? While we waited for the committee to finish its early-morning business, my seasoned mentor kept me chatting about silly stuff to distract me from my anxiety.
They saw my mentor first. They always do. He talked with them privately for a few minutes before I was invited to join them. I walked into the room and sat next to him, and he looked decidedly unhappy. As per status quo, each person introduced or re-introduced him- or herself to me, following a standard clockwise motion around the large circle of tables. I wrote down all of their first names and titles, so that I could address each one by name as they grilled me about the difficult questions. On such a lovely spring day, during which everything was in bloom, the tissue boxes and sniffly noses did not strike me as strange.
The compliments about my ministry were gushing. The gratitude shared about my work was affirming. I believe that every person on that committee had been led in worship by me at some conference or another, and it felt comforting to know that many appreciated those times. My District Superintendent, then “got down to business,” sharing with me that the website of my party celebrating my union with my partner, Sarah, had been viewed by the committee members.
I am sure that my face fell, because many looked away.
She asked me if I did, in fact, celebrate a Civil Union. I said yes. She asked me if I was aware of the Book of Discipline’s stand on homosexuality. I said yes. She clarified, “Do you know the language in paragraph 304.3?” You mean the incompatibility clause about discriminating against self-avowed, practicing homosexuals? Of course I know it. All the Queers in Methodism know it.
I could not hold back my tears anymore. It is interesting that I was the last person in the room to break down. Maybe I am used to being tough about the discrimination. I guess we, the LGBTQI folk who face it every day, are used to being tough just like our straight sisters, and our sisters and brothers of color, and all of those who are marginalized by a lack of unearned privilege.
I think my District Superintendent had expected a fight, because she appeared surprised as she closed her thick file folder to which she had looked ready to refer. I asked if I was excused. The chairperson, a near-retirement aged, straight, white, male clergyperson, dearly loved by many in this conference (myself included), gave me the opportunity to withdraw before they voted. I thanked the committee for the choice, and asked them to vote. I refused to be the one to take responsibility for this injustice. I have remained faithful to my call.
Tearful words of support and affirmation of my ministry as a lay-person were shared by many. Phrases such as “casualties of progress” and “discrimination against God’s children” and “prayers for change” were used. Many on the committee made pastoral comments about their availability to me. Only in retrospect did I notice that no one asked how my new Civil Union was going.
My mentor was angry with me. Although I had been out to him for several months and he knew that I was partnered, he did not know about Sarah’s and my celebration. This was the hardest part for me, knowing that he was blindsided by the committee. As he was approaching retirement in just a couple of months, this was an unpleasant circumstance among unpleasant circumstances. He has been tremendously supportive of my call and my ministry, and I love and respect him. It has occurred to me since: perhaps straight, white males do not make the types of terrible choices that we do. I do regret my decision to exclude him from invitation to my Celebration, but if that is my deepest regret, I have journeyed through this with integrity. I have done what I am called to do, and gone where I am called to go.
I had known from the day I “Got the Call” that I probably would be rejected by the United Methodist Church; I did not expect it quite so soon. I am also surprised at how sad I am. My usual grieving style tends to focus more closely on the “angry” part. But this wound is still fresh.
My comfort is this: when those committee members vote at Annual Conference on the “Issue of Homosexuality” in its many forms, they might picture my face, eager to talk about ministry and disappointed that we never made it past the sex. Go argue about Gay Issues, United Methodist Church, while I fight for my life.
The sick humor was not lost on me when I turned the key in the ignition, which lit up the clock that read 10:32am."
The GCORR Celebration spoke with joy about how we now find it inconceivable that our Church once closed doors to blacks. It is my hope that come forty years, we will find it just as inconceivable that there was ever a time that GLBTQ people were excluded. At the same time, I mourn that it will take that long. Beloved children of God...we can but hope. We can but pray.
Our preacher this morning talked about how Jesus was not conditional in his love and grace. He specifically mentioned those of other races. But folks, if Christ is unconditional with love and grace...wouldn't that include everybody? Being black was once viewed as a sin by white people wtih superiority complexes. I pray, pray, pray that one day we will realize that GLBT discrimination and name-calling is a similar problem with our society and those too scared or insecure to accept differences. THESE ARE PEOPLE TOO! These are beloved by God too! Jesus died for them too!
If nothing else...our Church DESPERATELY needs great leadership. DeLyn provides awesome leadership in music and ministry. Are we truly going to deny her and others the ability to follow through on God's calls in their lives and bless this Church and the world simply because they are different from us? It seems we are. Oh, Church, what are you doing to yourself?
Open hearts. Open minds. Open doors. May this someday be true.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
For starters: were I not vowed to follow the Discipline, I would with joy perform whatever kind of union the government allows regarding two people who choose to spend the rest of their lives together, regardless of whether they happened to be the same gender or not.
I also think the (very few) Biblical passages that speak against homosexuality don't even begin to envision two people of the same gender who are naturally attracted to each other and want to commit to a monogamous relationship.
Having said that, I long for the day when those who promote same-gender marriage move beyond the following arguments:
"We suffer from a lack of unearned privilege."
The problem here is that there are many people (not just white males - much of Africa) who believe that homosexual sex is sinful. They believe this on Biblical grounds. It is a straightforward and traditional interpretation of the text. It is true that slavery and keeping women out of the pulpit are also traditional (and, in the case of slavery, straightforward) interpretations of the text. But in both cases, proponents of change showed how the Bible also supported their view. The church needs to hear, more often, reasonable exegesis of these texts that allows same-sex unions.
"if Christ is unconditional with love and grace...wouldn't that include everybody? ... GLBT discrimination and name-calling is a similar problem with our society and those too scared or insecure to accept differences. THESE ARE PEOPLE TOO! These are beloved by God too! Jesus died for them too!"
Of course God's love and grace includes everybody, including people who are unable to control their violence or unable to contain their sexual impulses within a monogamous relationship. Both of these impulses (violence and sexual promiscuity) are demonstrably present as an inherent part of many people. Many people struggle incredibly to not give in; some succeed, many fail. This doesn't make such behavior right or good.
Now I personally think that same-gender attraction is markedly different from violence or promiscuity. But the argument needs to shift from "Jesus loves everybody." Of course Jesus loves everybody; not everybody is qualified to be a pastor. For some people, the disqualification is no fault of their own (for example, people with severe brain damage). For others, it's based on a disagreement over what is and what isn't sin.
As an aside, I would much rather that we disqualified people who couldn't control their greed, in part by putting a cap on pastors' salaries. (How about the median income in the given community?)
"our Church DESPERATELY needs great leadership. ... Are we truly going to deny her and others the ability to follow through on God's calls in their lives and bless this Church and the world simply because they are different from us?"
No, we're going to do it because they publically proclaim a lifestyle that the denomination views as sinful. There is no way, in the denominations view, that these people can be considered "going on to perfection."
Now - in practice, it may well be that this is simple homophobia on the part of most people voting. But I know loving, caring, thoughtful people who honestly believe that the traditional view of the Church is correct in seeing homosexual practice as sinful.
In order for there to be change, I think the argument needs to move to "homosexual unions are not sinful", and this argument is going to have to be made based on Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience. I think such an argument can be made.
Or we can just wait another forty years until the older generations die off, since the church currently learns mostly from society, and society seems to be figuring this out on its own. :-) / :-(
Thank you, oh my rational father. This entry was definitely written in the midst of some major emotion. Some (somewhat) more rational responses to your reasoning:
1. Much of Africa believes that homosexuality is wrong because they are taught that by white males. I wish that I didn't have to say this or that I didn't feel compelled to believe this, but the Central Conference delegates at General Conference are extremely manipulated by certain caucuses.
2. Amen to the biblical arguments.
3. The "Jesus loves them" paragraph was definitely written in a splurt of emotion. But, for the record, I don't believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin and that God accepts homosexuals as they are and does not view their emotional and physical attachments to their partners as sin.
Enough for one write-up...I'm about to start emotionally blurting again.
Personally, I am in a far more "conservative" place than your Father, and I would not perform a same-gender marriage ceremony regardless of the policies of either the church or the state. And, I would be willing to surrender my Orders over this, if it ever came to that.
It's way too much to read right now, but I've recently posted on this here:
http://tinyurl.com/3jxeaz
and here:
http://tinyurl.com/4uuxoo
"Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors" is an advertising slogan. It is not intended to sweep aside either the long-standing doctrinal or moral teachings of the church.
Quoting an advertising slogan does not answer a question about which people of good conscience strongly disagree.
' "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors" is an advertising slogan. It is not intended to sweep aside either the long-standing doctrinal or moral teachings of the church. '
I think it's much more than an advertising slogan (though, so far as I know, it was never approved by General Conference?). I think it's an excellent philosophy.
But I fully agree with the second sentence. I'm sure that Becca doesn't think that avowed practicing serial killers should be ordained.
I'm NOT comparing same-gender couples to serial killers. I don't think that monogamous same-gender couples are living in sin. But the majority does think so, has thought so for a long time, and has straightforward arguments from Scripture and tradition. If this view is going to change, those who believe it should change are going to have to start arguing from ALL 4 quarters of the quadrilateral, just as they have done on slavery and on female leadership.
Side note to one of Becca's comments: white males taught Africans that homosexuality was a sin? You probably know more about Africa than I do, but my naive (white male) assumption was that homosexuality was a taboo in most cultures long before Christianity came along. Please educate me.
African Homosexuality: I don't claim to be an expert on the real cultural views of it. I don't know that it's even as much of an issue for them, but I would guess that it varies by region. However, a few issues have come up at General Conference regarding manipulation of Central Conferences delegates. Certain caucus groups hold their own orientations for Central Conference delegates, swaying their vote. They've done this for many years. This year, however, they added something: Central Conference delegates were given cell phones by a specific group, and there were many accusations of voting manipulation. Again, I don't know a ton about this. Part of me objects. I think oftentimes US delegates on both sides see the Central Conference delegates as easily swayable, as though they don't have the ability to think for themselves or they are somehow less intelligent than English-speaking delegates are. This is a cause of great sadness for me. Clearly, we have a problem. I simply don't know how big the problem is or how best to fix it.
What I have heard is mostly secondhand. I really don't want to claim that I know a bunch about this. I would be interested in speaking more with Central Conference delegates themselves about where they stand on this issue...they can speak for themselves! But the limited interaction I have with African people here at General Conference can be better spent getting to know them and celebrating with them rather than spending time debating homosexuality.
And that was a very long rant...I guess my final word would be that I am still growing in knowledge on this issue and exploring my own feelings and opinions (my opinion on gays and lesbians, for example, is much more clear than my opinions about transgender people). Thank you everyone for your support and nonjudgment as I continue to grow and learn.
It may seem odd, but I'm actually "liberal" on the Trangender issue and "conservative" (with reservations) on the Homosexuality issue.
And, I often get attacked by people on both "sides."
I was attacked at length on Facebook recently (by a very dear friend) for being too liberal on the homosexual issue. But, I generally get attacked for being too conservative.
On transgenderism, I fail to see how there is any "sin" of any sort involved. This is a physical-psychological condition. What's the sin, anyway? The operation? The Church as an organization should not be making pronouncements about a physical-psychological condition and medical decisions about the appropriateness of surgery in particular cases.
And, I sure hope those prohibitions against transgendered pastors never make it to the floor. I don't look forward to having GC debate THAT every four years from now until who-knows-when.
I hope we are all trying to grow in our understanding of these issues. I fear that many people are so set in their opinions, they they cannot hear or respect people who disagree with them.
People of good conscience disagree on this & people don't want the opinions from "the other side" (whatever that is) shoved down their throat. But, in an organization where appointive power resides with the Bishop, it's difficult to guarantee that.
Another word on Africa and politics:
1. The African delegates definitely speak extremely strongly against homosexuality based on biblical arguments.
2. I spoke with a black man from the northern United States who agreed with my discussion about the Southern conservative missionaries in Africa.
Do with this information what you will.
And more...a young delegate from Africa at the 2000 General Conference spoke to an openly gay man, letting him know that he was with him. He stated that if his delegation knew, they'd send him back home, so he couldn't speak out, but was planning to vote for homosexual rights. It could be that this society is also gradually changing and that the young people are beccoming more open. It could be that the society is fairly divided, as America is, and it just happens that most of the delegates elected are more conservative, be that by design or not.
Post a Comment