This Gay Pastor Responds to General Conference

Over the past couple of weeks the internet has been replete with articles, blog posts, facebook updates, and tweets about the decision made at General Conference of The United Methodist Church to maintain language stating that "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." I actually don't want to rehash most of what has been said. Whether it's Chuck Currie (a UCC pastor preaching at First UMC in Portland), Sandy Brown (pastor at First UMC in Seattle), or others across the nation, most of what needs to be said has been said. Simply put, the decision to continue the marginalization of LGBTQI people is wrong. It is not about biblical authority or holiness. Rather, it is about power and fear of difference. For those who hold a theology that is challenged by fluid sexual identity or sexual orientation, there is more graciousness and kindness in stating that good Christians of good conscience disagree. Those who won't name our disagreement are much more interested in being right than loving, more interested in having power over than being in community with, more invested in shoring up their world views than being changed by the Other. These are my thoughts and they belong to no other person. I own them all.

My facebook wall has been filled with responses to General Conference - responses which range from disappointment to outrage, from the uncertainty of whether people can continue inside this polarized and broken denomination to deep sorrow because the bigotry of the general church is at odds with and doesn't reflect the love and welcome people have personally experienced in their local congregations. A number of these posts have been made by young adults and others who tuned in or attended General Conference for the first time this year. Others have been slogging through the debate on human sexuality quadrennium after quadrennium and they despair of any motion toward inclusion.

To be honest, I am more heartbroken over how other people have been hurt by General Conference than I am directly wounded by it. If I weren't somewhat inured to the issue by now, I would have left this denomination a long time ago. And, trust me, I've thought about it. Long and hard, I've thought about it. Today, however, I feel freed from the marginalization of the church (well, most of the time I do). A while ago, I decided to be honest about who I am, what I believe, and what I'm called to do; if the United Methodist Church provides a place for me at the table, so be it. If not, so be it. I don't say this flippantly. You see, my family is a generationally Methodist one. Not one, but two of my ancestors were Circuit Riders back in the early days of the movement. I can trace my family back to the very beginning of the Church of England. The Anglican way is part of me. The Wesleyan movement has left indelible marks on me. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral, Wesley's sermons, our hymnody, the idea of itinerating clergy, free will, prevenient grace, practical divinity - these are all deeply rooted in how I experience God and how I mediate God to others. However, I do not bow down to The United Methodist Church; I bow before God, and none other (at least that is to what I aspire). So, when I see this glorious movement, this wonderful heritage, wasted in worthless acts of evil and oppression, I hurt. When I hear young adults wonder how their church as a global body can differ so much from their local congregation, my heart breaks. When clergy who haven't been able to leave their closets come to me and cry in uncertainty about their place in this denomination, I cry with them.

There are those who like to quote scripture - five to seven specific scriptures - about how homosexuality is against human nature and God's plan for humankind. And, I don't want to parse those scriptures here. I'm willing to say, "Okay. Let's say that's right. So what?" That usually throws people off. They expect me to try an explain those scriptures away or to step into church apologetics, to get my "revisionist exegesis" on. I certainly can do that because the scriptures trotted out and put on display have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality, but I very often choose not to do that because arguing won't change people's minds. Rather, I have found that I have to step away from the debate, not because I am afraid of "losing" or because I can't match them scripture for scripture (I can), but because experience (one of the four components of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral) has taught me that debate and argument do not equal holy conferencing; they do not change anyone's mind. And so, I reply with the question, "So what?" There are no biblical literalists. There aren't. There are biblical fundamentalists, Evangelicals, charismatics, and so forth, but there aren't literalists. The Bible is always interpreted. We have made many decisions over the past two millennia about our relationship with scripture. It is our holy book. It is our story. It is God's Word. It is not something to take literally, not if we take it seriously. My question of "so what" is not a challenge to scripture; it is a challenge to the person abusing it. I simply call them on their arbitrary use of God's word, which I believe is a violation of the first three of the 10 Commandments, which leads all too often to the violation of the sixth and ninth commandments.

Instead of arguing, I pray for the salvation of those who say unspeakable things about me. I pray for those who enliken me to someone engaged in bestiality, pedophilia, murder, rape, and torture (all of which have been used in comparisons directly to me). At General Conference in 2000, an African delegate actually said that homosexuality results from a witch's curse, to which American delegates in opposition to homosexuality nodded in agreement and applauded. I had no choice except to believe that a significant portion of the Southern delegates believe in witchcraft or they were willing to use an African delegate to promote their own political aims. I left and prayed for them all. The narrowness of their heart must be a burden. I have come to believe in something I once deeply resisted for both theological and linguistic reasons: I have become a prayer warrior.

The United Methodist Church failed to live into something better, something more humane, something more Godly. It decided to stay locked in a pattern of fear, scapegoating, and namecalling. What it - what WE - did this General Conference was to contribute to the death of every LGBTQI person who commits suicide. Their blood is on our house. Every time religious language is lifted as a club used to spiritually bludgeon a beautiful child of God who wants to live fully the way in which God has created them to be, it steals something of their soul until too many hurting and soul-weary people take their own lives or live in fear, or they hide in dark and cold closets (a form of living suicides). We - The United Methodist Church - have decided through debate and democracy to participate in aiding their deaths.

In response to our decision, I feel the need to state here in public what many already know about me. But let this be a clear statement of what I think, who I am, and how I intend to minister:  To LBGTQI people and those who love them, the church is wrong. You are beautiful and wonderfully made. You are a child of God. This pastor will baptize you, confirm you, commune with you, perform your weddings, bury you, and invite you into positions of leadership. I will continue to lift my voice and offer my body as a witness to God's radical welcome. To delegates feeling dejected, thank you for all you have done for me. I am reminded that the central image in our faith is a cross, a symbol of systematized pain used to shame and humiliate. In order to love, Jesus gave up power. I choose to continue to love and walk the way of the cross with him.

Effectiveness or Entitlement: The Lie About Guaranteed Appointments

Today the United Methodist Church radically changed how pastors are sent to local congregations. The worldwide church body called General Conference ended the ages long practice of guaranteed appointments in which ordained elders are guaranteed full time employment as long as they go where their bishop sends them. This is, of course, an oversimplification of the process, but that is the basic agreement. Pastors may be sent anywhere within the episcopal area (in my area, that is the state of Washington and parts of Idaho) for one year at a time, although rarely does a pastor remain for only one year. In turn, every ordained elder is guaranteed a place to go. The assumption in recent years is that this guarantee or "entitlement," as some have put it, has become a drive to mediocrity and our clergy are simply underperforming.

Proponents of ending guaranteed appointments have framed the conversation as a choice between "entitlement to full time work" or "effectiveness." We can't, they state, have both. I want to put an end to this fallacy. The guarantee is not an entitlement, a word that I believe has been chosen to elicit negative emotions from people who think ill of social entitlements. Entitlement seems to indicate a gift to which a person has contributed nothing. I know that this is not what the word actually means, but I believe it has been used on purpose for this reason. Yet, this is not the case. Clergy agree to itinerate in return for the appointment. Moreover, clergy also agree to a whole evaluative process that could include involuntary leave should they be found ineffective. The guaranteed appointment is not an entitlement. It is not an unearned gift; it is part of a larger agreement - in church speak, we call it a covenant.

Effectiveness, these same people maintain, has been driven into the ground by the taken for grantedness of our positions. Effectiveness, which can be measured by metrics, must be measured in our pastors with only the effective ones sent to our churches. Like every other United Methodist, I want our congregations served by only the best clergy - smart, outgoing, administratively aware, liturgically proficient, evangelistic, visionary, prayerful, pastoral, prophetic, and connectional. Of course, we thrive in some of these categories more than in others, but we should be able to do all of them with a reasonable degree of skillfulness. Where I begin to have a problem is at the point that we directly correlate church growth with effectiveness and we tie the guarantee to the loss of church growth.

We live in the death throes (some would say after the death throes) of Christendom. If every United Methodist pastor could preach with the fervor of John Wesley, heal with the mastery of Jesus, sing with the voice of Miriam, envision with the eye of Jacob, witness with the power of Mary, evangelize with the commitment of Paul, and organize with the strong hand of Peter, we would never recover our identity in Christendom. And, God bless us for it. Christendom was a horrible pairing of government and religion. It was an imperial manifestation of something wholly anti-imperial - God's kingdom. We must, with clarity and compassion, close churches that need closing, make strategic plans about where new churches need planting, and creatively envision a multitude of ways for us to embody "church." It is time for us to focus on growing a strong, deep, and mature faith in our congregations and let go of reclaiming the hegemony of a time gone by. Mourn it. And, let it go, people.

Next, we live into this newly forming world learning how to be deeply committed to our identity, alive in sharing our gospel, joyful about life in God, and prophetic about a world that is just and compassionate. This will result in some large congregations, many small congregations, and newly emerging communities which may strain the understanding of what "congregation" means.

What do we do with clergy who simply don't perform well? First of all, we shouldn't ordain them. Year after year, I sit in clergy sessions when we pass people through who are clearly lovely and sweet and beautiful but not gifted for ordained ministry. As much as we want a big tent, there are some things a pastor must be able to do - relate with people across difference, preside over a service with grace and gravity, talk to people outside of the church without condemnation and with invitation, and so on. Some of us good book reading pastors are not suited to the relational life of a pastor. Conversely, some of our more extroverted pastors have entered this profession as failed performers rather than as clergy. Don't argue. You know it's true. There are stop gaps at the front end of ordination that we could and should employ to keep us true to the sacred act of ordaining people who will care for our congregations, mediate the sacraments, and tend to our communities. For those times that we wind up ordaining people who seemed competent at their ordination but who haven't proven this promise true, we have processes for helping them exit ministry.

In Para 350 of the Book of Discipline, it maintains that "Evaluation is a continuous process for formation in servant ministry and servant leadership that must take place in a spirit of understanding and acceptance. Evaluation serves as a process for pastors to assess their effectiveness in ministry and to discern God's call to continue in ordained ministry." Right there, annual evaluations should help local pastors discern effectiveness and determine whether God still calls them to continue in ordained ministry. For those in need, further education may be required. For those in need, they can take a "leave of absence," whether that be voluntary of involuntary. Involuntary leaves may be the result of a complaint process. The complaint process, while it includes all of the things most people assume (theft, sexual abuse, etc), can also include an "administrative complaint" - "If the bishop determines that the complaint is based on allegations of incompetence, ineffectiveness, or unwillingness or inability to perform ministerial duties, he or she shall refer the complaint as an administrative complaint to the board of ordained ministry for its consideration of remedial or other action" (Para 362.2).

So, we have processes already in our system for dealing with ineffectiveness, why end the guaranteed appointment? Because we don't avail ourselves of these processes. We have fostered an avoidant culture. Rather than dealing with this avoidant culture, we create another process, which will not work either unless we are willing to take a look at who, why, and how we ordain in the first place.

It may surprise many that I am not opposed to ending guaranteed appointments. I contend, however, that in getting rid of the guarantee, we should also get rid of the appointment system. There is nothing wrong with a call system, especially one with episcopal input like the one used by Lutherans. The bishop supplies the congregation with a short list of names of clergy who might fit their missional profile. They interview and select from that list. It's a collaborative process that would fit our connectional system nicely. However, doing away with the guarantee and keeping the appointment process strains an already strained process and attempts to 'fix' something not fixable. The guarantee is not the reason for our shrinking membership roles, although mediocre pastors may play a part. Mediocrity and guaranteed appointments do not go hand in hand, and, thus, comes the lie of the choice made at General Conference: Effectiveness or Entitlement.

*Others have raised the alarm on things like congregational resistance to minority clergy, the prophetic voice, and so on. I chose not to deal with these because I think my argument is even more foundational. The choice needn't have been made at all.

GC Blogs that I Read

General Conference is almost over, but a good bulk of the plenary work is being done in the last days of the assembly. I am keeping up by reading at the official UMC website, but I also am reading a number of blogs. These are the ones that I have kept up with. Who are you reading?

Jan Bolerjack - page from the PNW
The PNW delegation is blogging, too.
Reconciling Ministries Network is maintaining a GC site.
The official UMC GC site.

As I keep up with the legislation and watch via streaming online the sermons and addresses, a mixture of feelings bubbles around deep in my insides. Hearing the president of Liberia? Very inspiring. Listening to the address about the ELCA and the UMC moving closer to full communion? Very hopeful. Watching the failure (55% to 45%)legislation to pass that would name the division in our church about homosexuality? Demoralizing, disheartening. Reading petitions that want to prescribe how we interpret scripture? Scary (but heartening that it failed).

I try to keep my eyes on the long road ahead. I remember that God hasn't finished with us yet. We aren't perfect. We are very imperfect. GC just reminds me of how imperfect!

pnwumc annual conference reflections

This year's Annual Conference was a welcome surprise to me. After ten difficult annual conferences in the Pacific Northwest, including my ordination years, this year was different and surprising.

Annual Conference for the Pacific Northwest ended on Saturday after five days of holy conferencing. While I rarely, if ever, have referred to my experience of Annual Conference in this way, this year the mood of the conference felt like the way "church" should feel. There were no major conflicts on the floor of plenary, although some committees did experience acrimonious debate. The Discipleship Committee, on which I served as Vice-Chair, felt conciliatory in every way. Even when those "issues" which tend to divide were raised, our differences were aired with civility.

The most interesting time at the conference for me did not transpire during legislative committee or during debate on the floor. Rather, the moments that we spent as a conference in worship, celebrating our ministries, and looking to our future were much, much more meaningful. Worship this year was rich. As a pastor, I don't typically get to worship in the way that best nurtures my soul. Annual Conference offers many opportunities to receive the Word and Sacrament - very humbling. We had wonderful worship experiences last week, each one drawing us to the table of the Lord. The bishop's awards were given to an impressive group of people who have performed incredible ministry for Jesus Christ. The Ruth Award, given by clergywomen to a woman in ministry - lay or clergy each year - was a delight. The Nothing But Nets basketball game between the "Bishop's Bunch" and the "Youthful Yellows" was not only entertaining but spiritual. We raised over $5,000 (and only broke two bones on the old people's team!). Other offerings were no less important. For hurricane relief, we raised over $75,000! We collected old cell phones, used books, and change for Hope for the Children of Africa. We shared experiences of our mission trips and welcomed visiting speakers in our midst. And, of course, we commissioned and ordained those who have decided to offer their lives to the service of Jesus through the church. The bishop ordained and we welcomed into full membership six elders and two deacons. Additionally, we accepted one elder into full membership from another denomination, and three people were commissioned in preparation for Order of Elder. We celebrated the whole church. And this year like all years, I really enjoyed time spent with friends I don't get to see the rest of the year.

Of all of the things that happened, though, the election of our delegation to General Conference and Jurisdictional Conference was the most interesting and surprising. Our lay representation includes three young adults...awesome! Our clergy elected a surprising slate...also awesome. The first lay person elected was Amory Peck, with overwhelming support. She is a perfect witness for this annual conference in the general church. She was followed by Gail Grossman, Ryan Russell (young adult),
Peter Masundire, Mary Simpson-Stanton (young adult), and Barbara Dadd Shaffer. Lay reserves are Micah Coleman Campbell (young adult), Katherine Cosner, and Darren Wertz. The first clergy elected was Jin Ming Ma. What a wonderful surprise!! As is the case in many conferences, we tend to elect people who work in the conference office - people who have been around for ages and ages. Jin Ming Ma fits neither of those bills. She will be a wonderful voice for us at General Conference. She was followed by David Valera, Elaine Stanovsky, Craig Parrish, Bruce Smith (under forty years old), and Sharon Moe. Clergy reserves are Bonnie Chandler-Warren, Daniel Foster, and Crystal Sygeel (under forty years old). Our delegation is diverse in age and in gender as well as theologically, ethnically, and experientially. In a conference that sends only three voting members to GC, we have a difficult task to let the Holy Spirit move us into inclusivity, but this year we did it.

For the first time I had an unequivocally great time at Annual Conference. I hope the spirit that was alive in Tacoma last week will manifest in Texas next year, bringing the excitement and openness to new things that we experienced to the whole church.

For more details on what happened last week, go here.