Lesbian bishop!

This past week the five jurisdictions (multi-state regions) of the United Methodist Church in the United States held Jurisdictional Conferences. These always follow General Conference by a few months. The main task of a JC is to elect new bishops for the region and then assign which bishop goes to which Annual Conference (district). There is usually other business to attend to, such as approving a budget. This time the North Central Jurisdiction (Ohio to the Dakotas) affirmed the creation of a new Annual Conference covering the state of Michigan and transitioning from the current two Annual Conferences in the state.

This year the North Central Jurisdiction had four bishops retiring, thus elected four new bishops. This time (as frequently happens) no candidate got enough votes on the first ballot. As balloting proceeded, some candidates were elected, others didn't meet a minimum number of votes and were dropped from the next round, still other saw their prospects weren't good and withdraw, and the rest were included in the next round. Thirteen ballots were needed to elect the four new bishops.

I paid more attention this year because of the General Conference action that dumped the LGBT issue into the laps of the bishops. These bishops, including the newly elected ones, will appoint who serves on the commission that recommends a way forward.

The new bishops of the North Central Jurisdiction are:

Tracy Smith Malone, a black woman. A friend in the know says she is progressive and an advocate for us.

Frank Beard, a black man. This friend says he is quite conservative.

David Bard, a white man. He is another progressive and has been a strong advocate for LGBTs in the church. He has been assigned to Michigan.

Laurie Haller, a white woman currently serving in Birmingham, MI. She is also progressive.

From across the country...

The 2016 class of bishops included more women than any previous class for a total of seven. This is a gain because more women were elected than are retiring. Out of those seven female bishops four are black. That includes the first black woman elected bishop in the Southeastern Jurisdiction.

The most important news: Of those seven new female bishops, one is a lesbian. Karen Oliveto of San Francisco will become a bishop in the Western Jurisdiction (Colorado and west). This jurisdiction is the most progressive (even though it includes some pretty red states) and has been the most defiant of the rules against LGBT people in the church's Book of Discipline which describes how the denomination works.

When I heard Oliveto (and three gay candidates) were nominated I had an important question. If gay and lesbians in relationship (Oliveto is married) are banned from being pastors, how is it possible for them to be elected bishop? This means that certain conferences and jurisdictions have intentionally not been enforcing that rule for perhaps decades. While some pastors have been put on trial and removed for being gay, others clearly have not. Proof of that is the large number of LGBT clergy that came out during General Conference.

Many in the Western Jurisdiction and across the country are delighted with Oliveto's election to bishop and with what it means. Lynn Magnuson, a lay delegate, said, "We just blew the socks off the denomination."

Oliveto was elected on the 17th ballot and the Western Jurisdiction needed only one new bishop. Rev. Sisofina Hingano was one of those candidates who withdrew to make Oliveto's election more likely. He withdrew because of his son Wesley. The father said he withdrew so people like his son could walk through the doors to freedom in the church. The son said, "It is a beautiful day."

As expected, conservative voices declared this election a violation of church law and a significant step towards a schism. The move at General Conference to have a commission to determine a way forward has been damaged by the Western Jurisdiction intentionally pledging they won't conform and violating what the commission was to do.

As a local pastor Oliveto could be protected by her Annual Conference or Jurisdiction. They could decide (and have) to ignore complaints filed against lesbian and gay pastors, refusing to put them on trial or dismissing them. But Oliveto is becoming a bishop and anyone in the worldwide denomination could file a complaint. A marriage license would be enough evidence for conviction. It might be up to the Council of Bishops or, more likely, up to the Judicial Council (the denomination's supreme court) whether to put Oliveto on trial or demand her dismissal. This could be much more damaging to the denomination's reputation than the pastor trials that we've thankfully been avoiding lately.

Hmm. Rev. Gene Robinson was elected bishop in the Episcopal Church in 2003 – 13 years ago.

Oliveto has been assigned to the Annual Conferences that cover Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and Montana.

General Conference – the day after

I personally know a delegate to General Conference. We are both in the same performing organization and gave a concert today. We talked for a bit before concert preparation got underway. She said the denomination was very close to splitting before the whole issue was thrown to the bishops who proposed a commission and a possible additional General Conference. She also said in most populations there are about 10-15% who take the firm progressive and conservative stances, leaving 70-80% as moderates. But at GC it seemed more like 35-55% were firm progressives and conservatives, leaving maybe 20% moderates.

Will Green spotted a whiteboard sign at the hotel where the bishops were staying, "Press 1 for Unity. Press 2 for Incompatible. Please vote now." I'm sure this refers to the voting devices used during plenary sessions. At first this seems cute. But the bishops are promoting unity by maintaining the "incompatibility" clause. Pressing either button gets us the same thing. Green wrote:

The UMC has created a situation that guarantees failure. They can promote their version of unity, which leaves many of us incompatible with Christian teaching. Or they can support the church’s current statements on sexuality, which means we are not united.

Someone had pointed out that during GC this has been an issue of "human sexuality" – there was a Human Sexuality Committee, there were items on the agenda about human sexuality. It seems a lot of people in power cannot yet bring themselves to say lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Most of the sexuality issues were really issues about LGBT people.

Green reports the Council of Bishops met after GC. One item on the agenda is the commission that is supposedly going to keep the denomination together and resolve this issue. So all the work to set up the commission, choose who will be on it, get the meetings organized and the work to begin – a very high priority – will happen … in November. The commission won't begin work until 2017. Ready for an extra GC in 2018 or 2019? Um...

Green summarized the situation:

If you think we are going to get the best of the system if we get the right people in the right seats and get them to vote the right way, then hope will die again and again and again. We have been doing that for 44 years and we have lost, lost, lost… Our power is not in the system.

Our power is the equivalent of civil disobedience. Defiantly come out! Defiantly ordain LGBT people! Defiantly officiate at same-sex weddings! Defiantly be in meaningful relationships with LGBT people and be in ministry with and for them!

Because of this new commission (which seems comatose on arrival) all LGBT issues were not voted on at GC. That includes all those petitions wanting to work out what to do with those who defy the Book of Discipline – and most of those were about punishing defiance.

Even so, the Reconciling Ministries Network has some good things to say about the commission and what is going on around it. First, Bishop Ough, now the leader of the Council of Bishops, confirmed that queer voices will be represented on the commission. Second, the full Council of Bishops (not just some of the American bishops) have promised to look for ways to avoid church trials.

The United Methodist news service has an article summarizing all that happened at GC. I saw an item I had missed during the week. This was a petition that requires all petitions get a vote in legislative committee and all petitions passed by committee must get a vote before the full plenary. It passed by 53%. This GC was 10 days. Considering how many petitions did not get a vote, perhaps the next GC needs to be a month long. I'm very aware how fortunate we are that many of those petitions were not acted on.

Rev. Dr. Pamela Lightsey wrote a post for the Reconciling Ministries Network blog. She said that GC wasn't after just oppressing LGBT people. There were several other areas of oppression at work, such as withdrawing from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. This GC was a strong push towards conservatism. Lightsey wrote:

The genuine clues to help us expose the deep bigotry held by far too many within our denomination come by watching the evidence of the mounting coalescing of persons who believe it’s time to end oppression. These persons understand that where you find homophobia, transphobia and institutional racism, you will also find strategies to deny reproductive rights, ecological justice, affordable healthcare a living wage, and much more.

We're in this together.

General Conference – one last protest

Even with GC approving the bishop's proposal and things seem to be on track for the commission there was still another protest today. This one declared unfinished business – there is still harm being done to LGBT people and that harm will continue (at least) until that special GC concludes its work 2-3 years from now. Yes, there is a glimmer of hope, but the harm continues. Sue Laurie, the one who was unofficially ordained earlier during GC, asked "Where does a LGBT person go to church on Sunday?" The protesters surrounded the plenary floor and sang, "I am not forgotten, you are not forgotten, God knows your name."

Yes, more damaging petitions did not come up for a vote (which we likely would have lost). But this is not a victory, this is merely crumbs. The Book of Discipline was not changed.

The last paragraph of the bishop's response that created the commission is, "We will continue to explore options to help the church live in grace with one another – including ways to avoid further complaints, trials and harm while we uphold the Discipline." Emphasis added.

Add to that a Council of Bishops that has become dysfunctional, with no leadership and too invested in the status quo and keeping the peace. Yes, peace has a higher priority than justice for us.

The result is nothing has changed. And we fell for the glimmer of hope this commission offers us.

Will Green offers some final thoughts. The only new idea from this GC is the possibility of more frequent GCs.



One of the big votes today was whether the denomination should become fossil free by divesting from oil and coal companies. As the issue was debated a delegate quoted John Wesley: "We ought not gain money at the expense of life." The issue came down to whether it was better to divest or to engage.


This is me speaking: I see that as whether divesting is heard louder than engaging. I don't hear the denomination doing a whole lot of engaging, though the Financial Administration Committee or whatever group is in charge of pensions might be doing it quietly – and apparently ineffectively.

Divestment lost by 86%.



Back in 1984 GC added the restriction that "self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers or appointed to serve." Later the Judicial Council decided that was appropriate. Another JC decision says annual conferences "have the authority to decide whether candidates for ordination meet the disciplinary qualifications." Someone finally asked, don't these decisions conflict?

This is an important question because many annual conferences are using the second decision to say they aren't going to ask whether a candidate for ordination is LGBT. That means they are defying the first decision.

JC responded. Nope, no conflict. "The annual conferences have clear authority under the constitution. But that authority does not and constitutionally cannot intrude into the authority of the General Conference." Even so, defiance will continue.

General Conference – refer to the commission

A sign spotted in the observer section of the convention hall:

1980 Study – No Effect
1988 Study – No Effect
2008 Study – No Effect
2016 Commission – Suspect Effect
No Pressure : No Effect

A couple tweets suggest going up to bishops and asking so when is the first meeting of that commission?

Yesterday delegates voted to wait on all the petitions having to do with human sexuality and refer them to the special commission the bishops are forming. More details of all of this in the official UMC news.



Not sure what to make of this one. There was apparently a motion to hold that special GC in 2018 or 2019 at Africa University or in an African country. I'm not sure what happened to this motion. The standard GC in 2024 or 2028 is already scheduled for Harare – with the provision it be held there only if LGBT delegates and advocates can be safe.



Three denominations, Episcopal Church, Oregon Diocese, The United Church of Christ national officers, Society of Friends (Quakers), New England, have written letters of support and encouragement for the UMC to be more inclusive of LGBT people.



GC has withdrawn UMC membership in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice even though the denomination contributed no money. Support will continue through UMW and the General Board of Church and Society, though the effective voice will be smaller.

General Conference – responding to the bishops

As I reported earlier today the bishops did issue a plan to resolve the intractable human sexuality debates, something delegates are now saying cannot be accomplished through legislation. The plan is to have a commission study every page of the Book of Discipline for language that is hurtful and contradictory then recommend changes. A special General Conference, hopefully in 2018 or 2019, would be convened to consider the recommendations.

But what to do until then?

One motion was to proceed with the bishop's recommendation, but also proceed with the human sexuality petitions that have come before this GC. Thankfully, this was defeated. I say that because some of those petitions would heap more harm.

Bishop Ough, which touched off this whole scenario said the support among the bishops was overwhelming, but not unanimous. Bishop Hagiya said that more traditional bishops were annoyed that while the commission worked there would be a moratorium on church trials and that would open the door to all kinds of violations.

That makes me wonder: Is he suggesting there aren't violations now?

The delegates voted by a wide margin to ask who has the authority to set ordination standards, General Conference or the local Annual Conference? That question was sent to the Judicial Council. The reason for the question is because several Annual Conferences have said they will ignore sexual orientation when determining whether a candidate is fit for ordination.

Another issue did go before the Judicial Council. There were petitions to require minimum penalties for chargeable offenses. These are the things that will put a pastor on trial. An example is officiating at a same-sex wedding. The petition wanted a mandatory suspension of a year without pay (since defrocking doesn't seem to be a thing anymore).

The Judicial Council ruled that a mandatory penalty cannot be imposed when a pastor voluntary admits the offense, and that includes when the admission is part of agreeing to a Just Resolution to avoid a trial. In addition, the annual conference has sole authority on matters related to the character of its clergy members. Transferring that authority to GC, by GC demanding a minimum penalty, is unconstitutional.

There will be no mandatory minimum penalties.

Relying on tweets for news gets interesting. I had left you hanging on the fate of the bishop's recommendation. The various streams of tweets (and the United Methodist news service) said that after lunch the plenary would take up such a motion written by Adan Hamilton (who is definitely an ally). But the news article stopped there. Later tweets say Hamilton's motion was defeated, yet another motion passed by 51%. I don't have a text for this motion. Along the way was a call for the presiding bishop to be removed from the chair. Alas, I have no details.

Many are encouraged by this action. Others worry that is is just another delaying tactic.

Being debated now is petition 60935, which creates a Central Conference in the United States. This is a critical issue because it allows the US churches to say there needs to be a national difference from the global Book of Discipline. And the top of the list of differences is in how we treat LGBT people.

General Conference – bishops respond

I mentioned yesterday that the bishops were asked to lead, to provide a way forward from the apparent deadlock on human sexuality issues. Today the bishops released a statement. It is 3 pages, so I won't quote it all. The statement affirms the goal of unity and calls the church to prayer. They suggest 1-2 hours of plenary time for the remaining days be shifted from legislation to prayer.

I quote from the statement:

NEXT STEPS We recommend that the General Conference
defer all votes on human sexuality and refer this entire subject
to a special Commission, named by the Council of Bishops, to
develop a complete examination and possible revision of every
paragraph in our Book of Discipline regarding human
sexuality. We continue to hear from many people on the
debate over sexuality that our current Discipline contains
language which is contradictory, unnecessarily hurtful, and
inadequate for the variety of local, regional and global
contexts. We will name such a Commission to include persons
from every region of our UMC, and will include representation
from differing perspectives on the debate. We commit to
maintain an on-going dialogue with this Commission as they do
their work, including clear objectives and outcomes. Should
they complete their work in time for a called General
Conference, then we will call a two- to three-day gathering
before the 2020 General Conference. (We will consult with
GCFA regarding cost-effective ways to hold that gathering.)

That called General Conference might take place in 2018 or 2019.

One result of this move, if GC approves, means there will be no improvement of LGBT issues in 2016. There also won't be more penalties and restrictions.

A link to the full text can be found here.



The Love Your Neighbor Coalition held a shower of stoles demonstration. Each stole is displayed from a cross, signifying a pastor who has been "crucified" trhough denominational policies. I've seen shower of stoles displays at Reconciling Ministires Convo. Each stole is from a pastor who has been prevented from being ordained, or who was forced from his/her job because of being LGBT.

General Conference – bishops need to lead

I'm piecing my story from several sources, some of which are Twitter feeds that give only moments in the story, not the full outline. So I think this is what happened. I likely have details wrong.

Bishop Bruce Ough gave an announcement this morning in which he called for unity within the denomination. He was partly addressing behind-the-scenes talk of a schism. Ough was saying there will be no schism.

That spawned a protest, though perhaps not a disruptive one. LGBT people and allies sang "Blest Be the Tie that Binds" as they bound their wrists with rainbow cloth. Some were even on the floor with cloth binding hands to feet behind their backs. The general message is there is no unity if it doesn't address full inclusion of LGBT people. There is no path forward and there doesn't look to be one by the end of GC in two days.

That prompted Rev. Mark Holland and Rev. Adam Hamilton of the Great Plains Conference to say to the bishops: Do something. You're the church leaders – lead. Come back tomorrow with a plan describing what you are going to do. Holland's motion passed 428-364.

The bishops don't have a vote at GC, though they do preside over the plenary sessions. One thing they can do is call an extra General Conference, likely in 2018, and for the purpose of figuring out what to do with this one issue.

At a news conference Ough admitted the bishops are not united on (I think) both the LGBT inclusion issue and the schism issue. Some respond that admitting division in your ranks is not leadership.

Matt Berryman, executive director of Reconciling Ministries Network responded:

Separation conversations are not new, and at this General Conference, the idea has been pushed by conservatives who finally understand that fairness and equality for LGBTQ people in the church will not be silenced. While we appreciated the recognition of our struggle by the Council of Bishops today, we are discouraged by their refusal to meet this head on and bring peace and justice to all of us who serve this church.

The conservative Good News caucus issued a statements:

Bishop Bruce Ough’s morning statement at General Conference should be applauded for its directness and its honesty, but it was also a cause for sadness and disappointment. His confession that the Council of Bishops is divided and unable to provide the leadership we need to be a united and vibrant church is another indication of how serious our dysfunction is.

More background to the story is here in an article in the United Methodist Reporter.

I've had discussions with people since GC in 2012. I heard that schism isn't realistic. Neither side would have enough resources to operate a global church with all the boards and agencies we have now.