Thoughts on the outcome of General Conference

Lying in bed last night and this morning I thought about what happened at General Conference. So I offer a few opinions on the matter. Though I write this blog under the banner of Dedicated Reconciling United Methodists, these are my opinions and may differ from the DRUM leadership.

First, a bit of history that should be well known to most of us. The United Methodist Church was formed by combining two denominations in 1968. The first General Conference of the new denomination was in 1972. As part of creating the Social Principles, the phrase “homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching” was inserted to the Book of Discipline, the denomination’s governing document.

Progressives have been trying to get that phrase removed at every General Conference since then. Conservatives have for just as log been trying to add restrictions to LGBTQ people (can’t serve as pastors, can’t be married) using this incompatibility phrase as justification. Some of those restrictions have been approved.

In the 1980s the vote to remove the incompatibility clause lost by about 80% (I don’t have exact numbers). By 2008 the vote lost by only 54%. That was enough for me to feel 2012 was our year and I went to General Conference as an observer to experience the joy when the clause was removed.

That year it lost by 60%. It was a painful day. Conservatives were waiting with more restrictions, such as requiring church trials for pastors who officiated at same-sex weddings. We avoided more harm by running out the clock.

In 2016 tensions were high. More harm was avoided by creating the Commission For a Way Forward, which culminated in the just concluded special General Conference.

So, on reflection, I’m not surprised the Traditional Plan, the one to heap on more LGBTQ punishments, passed. Yes, disappointed, but no longer surprised. A good number of its provisions were ready to be voted on in 2012, a time when the denomination was getting tired of negative publicity of pastor trials, yet conservatives wanted them to continue. I suppose I should be heartened that this year the plan passed with only 53% rather than the 60% or more of 2012. Given a chance to approve more restrictions on LGBTQ people, GC did.

In yesterday’s post I wrote about the influence of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, a non-Methodist group funded by the Koch brothers who also fund the GOP and the Tea Party. Though not naming names, a letter this morning from Reconciling Ministries Network confirms my understanding:

The Traditionalist Plan was passed by the efforts of organized opponents to gospel inclusion who have funded and promoted the demise of Christian witness across denominations who have dared to call out a white nationalist strain of Christianity. For decades, they sought the decline of biblical justice-rooted Christian traditions and have built the infrastructure and narrative that has now risen to power in The United Methodist Church. What has transpired today is an effort to weaken the Church and the local church, its global witness and reach, and the work of the Holy Spirit.

I see this mess as a failure of leadership, mostly a failure of the United Methodist Council of Bishops. They guide the denomination (under the BoD set by General Conference), but there hasn’t been a lot of guiding over the last several years. This is a longstanding complaint and comes from many people. Some of my complaints:

Before General Conference I told people I couldn’t predict an outcome. As I mentioned above I’m not surprised by what happened. But I think the bishops should have had a strong understanding of the likely outcome. If they didn’t want this outcome, they could have prepared to prevent it. They didn’t.

The bishops put together the Commission, but didn’t do such things as actively promote what the Commission recommended. Once the Commission was done the bishops didn’t make sure the GC was about the outcome they recommended. Instead, they offered options – allowing GC to choose the worst one.

The progressive plans were written by the Commission and were designed with the rules of the denomination in mind. According to Rev. Jeremy Smith of the blog Hacking Christianity, the Traditional Plan was not written by the Commission, rather a small group of conservative bishops. There are a lot of ways this Plan was outside the normal channels. Since it was not a part of the Commission’s work, it did not need to be a part of this General Conference. The bishops had a chance to halt this plan before it was included in the GC agenda.

A big part of the GC in 2012 and 2016 was about preventing more harm, preventing harsher penalties from being approved. And here the bishops essentially handed conservatives an opportunity to do a great deal of harm.

The bishops have consistently chosen unity over harm reduction of LGBTQ people. I agree that we would be better as a denomination with both progressive and conservative members. But conservatives were insisting on more and more harm. It has been clear to me for quite a while that to reduce harm a split should be made to happen. Instead, harm continues.

There has been talk since at least before the 2012 GC to implement a way for American congregations to make decisions about LGBTQ people without conservative votes from Africa. The Africans already have the ability to change the global rules to fit their culture. The American church cannot. Efforts to make this change didn’t get much support from the bishops and didn’t get very far.

The bishops didn’t call out the influence of outside groups such the Institute for Religion and Democracy. This influence and money has damaged the church.

The bishops haven’t prepared for a split. The conservatives have, creating a structure congregations could move to if the GC vote didn’t go in their favor. There is no such structure on the progressive side.

The Traditional Plan has been approved. It has, I think, 17 parts. Half of them were declared in violation of the denomination’s constitution. Some were modified before voting. But, yeah, delegates voted for a proposal they knew didn’t have constitutional approval. They approved it anyway. The Judicial Council will convene in April and will likely invalidate many of the parts. Even with them gone, the remaining pieces are still pretty bad for LGBTQ people and their allies. Those pieces will officially become part of denomination law. Also approved proposals about how congregations exit the denomination and still protect pensions. But GC did not address anything about how the denomination might split in two. That will likely (hopefully) be a big topic for next year’s GC.

Yes, I’m angry. I’ve been a member of the United Methodist Church ever since I’ve been old enough to be a member of any church. What happened yesterday has a very good chance of destroying the denomination, the conservative side because few youth want to be associated with such bigotry, especially against their LGBTQ friends, the progressive side because of a poor effort to gather the leaving congregations into a connected denomination and because a much smaller denomination may not be financially sustainable.

As some of my progressive friends have said to blow up the United Methodist Church over this issue is silly and stupid. I agree.

The only ones who win in this situation are IRD. The destruction of the denomination is their goal.

There is a lot of muttering about the conservative Africans, that if they didn’t vote on American issues the Traditional Plan wouldn’t have passed – that the American delegation was 2/3 in favor of the One Church Plan that would have allowed each region to set its own rules for how to treat LGBTQ people (and allowing African congregations to keep restrictions).

But don’t blame Africa. Though African delegates supplied the votes, the effort and desire to get the Traditional Plan passed came from conservative Americans, including the IRD, which isn’t a part of the denomination and not even particularly religious. That conservative effort has, over the years, included some shady methods by the Americans to get the Africans to vote their way.

So now what?

There is a regular two-week General Conference 14 months from now. Will the bishops guide what happens or will they be bystanders? Will they help create a progressive structure for congregations or regions that refuse to operate under the restrictions of the Traditional Plan? What about the other denomination assets, such as the United Methodist Building just north of the Supreme Court in Washington? What about the publishing company? Boards and agencies that advocate for justice? And the one I’m most worried about – UMCOR, the United Methodist Committee on Relief, which rivals the Red Cross and certainly outdoes FEMA in responding to disasters. Are plans being proposed about how to handle all this so that GC in 2020 can approve it?

I’ve thought of leaving the denomination and my local church. However, I’m willing to stick around long enough to see what happens at GC 2020.

Bishops recommend a Way Forward plan

I recently got an email of a press release from the United Methodist Council of Bishops and their meeting in Chicago.

I had posted that the bishops and created a Commission on a Way Forward and the commission had done its work, sending a report to the bishops. This press release noted the commission considered three plans for the denomination’s future, the Traditionalist Plan, the One Church Plan, and the Connectional Conference Plan. The release also said the bishops strongly endorsed the One Church Plan and gave their reasons. All three plans are to be presented to the special General Conference scheduled for next February.

However, this press release did not describe the three plans.

The details of the plans and the legislative proposals to implement them are still being completed. They will then be translated into the official languages of the General Conference (this is a world-wide denomination). Release is expected about July 8.

Though the Council of Bishops didn’t release details of the plans, individual bishops, in letters to their pastors, did release broad outlines. Bishop John Schol is one who did so.

The Traditionalist plan would strengthen the language against (Schol used the word “about”) homosexuality in the Book of Discipline and strengthen punishment for those who disobey.

Schol says the Council of Bishops doesn’t like this plan because of the pain of individuals and congregations as well as the disruption and distraction of church trials.

The Connectional Conference Plan allows districts or congregations to decided if they want to be under one of three umbrella conferences – progressive, centrist, or conservative. Each of these conferences could modify or reject parts of the Book of Discipline.

The Council of Bishops rejects this plan because it is based on segregation. That didn’t work well for Methodism between 1939 and 1968 when it was racial segregation. It would also take maybe 10 years to implement.

The One Church Plan allows congregations to decide their marriage policies and pastors to determine who they will marry. Each district decides who is fit for the ministry.

The Council of Bishops, says Schol, recommends this plan because it does not require congregations to think and act alike and preserves unity in the midst of differences.

In the meantime a court case over a breakaway church is proceeding. Within the United Methodist Church, though a congregation may raise the money to build a church, the denomination owns it in trust. I just learned that’s why a congregational committee in charge of the building is known as the trustees. A conservative faction, the Wesleyan Covenant Association, is providing the legal support for a congregation attempting to leave the denomination while keeping their building. They are also offering their services to any other congregation that might want to do the same. But isn’t this the group demanding obedience to the Book of Discipline on homosexuality while they defy it here? Rev. Jeremy Smith of Hacking Christianity notes:

Every church that leaves Methodism makes it weaker and easier to bargain with or hold hostage. And every church that leaves brings in more money to the official legal counsel of the Wesleyan Covenant Association, who can advertise his services to more people.

Rev. Smith notes that no matter the plan some pockets of United Methodism will continue to discriminate against LGBTQ people. All three plans allow at least some congregations or conferences to discriminate. Smith compares this to what the denomination did with women and African-American clergy.

Smith also warns that given a chance conservatives will squeeze progressives out of the denomination’s power structure. An example of that: The Western Jurisdiction (Colorado and west) is the most progressive (they even have a lesbian bishop). One proposal that might show up in a minority report suggests absorbing the Western Jurisdiction into another (more conservative) region.

Way Forward is done, conservatives announce intentions

Back in 2016 the General Conference of the United Methodist Church was very close to schism over the issue of homosexuality. The delegates approved the creation of a Commission on a Way Forward, tasked with outlining how the denomination might stay together. The commission’s final report is done and will be given to the Council of Bishops at the end of this month. It has not yet been made public, though commission members and various bishops are optimistic. From the report the Bishops will create a proposal for what the denomination should do. It will be voted on at a special General Conference next February. This GC will consider only this proposal. The next regular GC is in 2020.

The conservative part of the denomination has always been active, insisting on prohibitions of LGBTQ clergy and members since the first General Conference in 1972. These various movements have coalesced into the Wesleyan Covenant Association, formed a few years ago. As Rev. Jeremy Smith discusses in his blog Hacking Christianity, the WCA has now announced their intentions.

If the proposal from the Council of Bishops isn’t sufficiently conservative (sufficiently restrictive on LGBTQ people) they will submit their own minority report (and in the rules of the denomination, the minority report gets voted on first). And if their report isn’t approved, they will begin a schism. Do it our way or else.

They may not demand the delegates vote on specific articles of separation. Instead, “the WCA will provide a home for laity, clergy, and churches committed to what has been historically taught...” And they’ll provide legal counsel to help churches get out of their contracts with the denomination (for example, though a congregation pays for building their church, the denomination owns it).

The big questions:

First: Will the WCA pull the moderates to their side? Over the last few decades and quite a bit through the last six years the conservatives have been building a parallel structure of of publishers, seminaries, and missionaries outside the control of the bishops and denomination agencies. At the same time they have been claiming a minority, persecuted status, especially claiming persecution by the bishops. And moderates have fallen for it.

Second: If the conservative resolution passes, what will progressives do? Will they prize “unity” over principle (which LGBTQ people feel has been happening for at least a decade) and leave us under restrictions at least as bad as what we have now? Or will progressives demand a split?

Rev. Smith notes there are three things at the center of the denomination’s current crisis:

1. A failure to develop a robust sexual ethic (mostly around LGBTQ people).

2. A failure to include minority perspectives and promote diversity.

3. A failure to play fair with the processes created by General Conference to resolve 1 and 2.

All three failures are from the efforts of various conservative groups. Rev. Smith describes it as conservatives creating a crisis and then selling the only solution to the crisis. Instead of offering a Way Forward they are pushing for a Way Out.

Much of this wrangling of the national and global denomination is of intense interest to me because the lives of fellow LGBTQ people are affected by these decisions. But, as I’ve said before, it doesn’t really affect what I will do until it affects my local church.

My local church is doing wonderful work. They promote diversity and inclusion (though they haven’t been very loud about the gay welcome lately). I feel pretty good about attending.

The General Conference decisions, in either direction, may have no impact on my local congregation. But there could be a very big impact.

* A schism may leave either or both sides with insufficient financial resources and the denomination collapses.

* The conservative side wins and demands each church crack down on their LGBTQ members. In the last two GCs harsher rules were avoided mostly by avoiding votes on them.

* The WCA entices congregations to join them or demands each congregation choose. My congregation votes on the issue and is split by it, resulting on harsh feelings all around – not good for building an institution that’s supposed to be built on love and inclusion.

We know their intentions. Do we have the time and influence to shape the outcome?

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.

Connectional Table panel on homosexuality

There was a notable event sponsored by the United Methodist Council of Bishops. It was part of the Connectional Table which "oversees the coordination of mission, ministries, and resources across the denomination." As part of that it is hosting a series of online conversations as a dialogue on topics of interest. One of those conversations was a few days ago and put on by the Human Sexuality Task Force. The primary topic was homosexuality. This panel was translated into French, Portuguese, and German, the languages of the worldwide denomination. At peak viewership 450 computers (around the world?) were receiving the streaming.

The news reports say there were six panelists, five of whom are (or were) members of the Council of Bishops. Those reports are unclear about who else was in the room. Surely a moderator and a cameraman to get the program out onto the web. There was also a screen to view videos, one of which was submitted by the mother of a gay son who had committed suicide because the church's new youth pastor had declared the lad was going to hell. But it isn't clear there was a live audience, how big it was, and who was in it.

One thing is clear: If there was an audience it didn't include gay people. Which means once again there were a bunch of people pontificating about us (even if some of them were on our side) without our presence.

Obedience to avoid chaos (and love)

I recently got a link for the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church for their report on the recent meeting of the Council of Bishops. This is the meeting that called for charges be brought against Bishop Talbert for conducting a same-sex ceremony in Alabama. This post has some more details.

Before the ceremony Talbert informed the Council President and the bishop of Northern Alabama (where the ceremony was to be held) of what he intended to do. Both of them requested he not do the ceremony. He did it anyway. That's why the Council of Bishops want him charged with "undermining the ministry of a colleague." The other recommended charge is the more obvious "conducting a ceremony to celebrate the marriage of a same-gender couple."

It appears the full Council voted to approve this recommendation to bring charges. The vote tally isn't recorded. However, it is the "offended" bishop and/or the Council President who must actually bring charges, which are taken to the much more liberal Western Jurisdiction where the decision of what to do with Talbert is made.

The full resolution the Council voted on is more than a statement that they didn't like what Talbert did. While they say Talbert is in clear violation of the Book of Discipline and therefore charges should be brought, they also say the denomination as a whole and (more importantly) the Council of Bishops are "not of one mind" on the issues around homosexuality. The resolution includes a recommendation "for a task force to lead honest and respectful conversations regarding human sexuality, race and gender." Yeah, we get to be "studied." Again.

The Council also discussed the letter that requested the bishops stop holding trials. There were two responses from observers at the meeting. One was from Good News the conservative counterpart to Reconciling Ministries Network (the folks working for gay inclusion and other progressive issues). Good News is against a moratorium on trials. They essentially said if we don't have obedience to the Book of Discipline there will be chaos and anarchy. So, yeah, obedience trumps love. A very Power way of looking at it.

The other response was from Amy DeLong, a pastor who was put on trial in 2011 for conducting a same-sex ceremony and for being a lesbian in relationship. She is also against the moratorium. All it does, she says, is push the issue under the rug. We will be a divided church until we deal with the exclusionary language.

I disagree with DeLong because we can't officially change the policy until 2016 with no guarantee that it will happen then. If we continue the trials we'll get a public relations black eye, we'll lose a lot of good pastors, and we'll lose a lot of members.

Three other clergy are facing charges that might go to trial.
* Rev. Thomas Ogletree officiated at the wedding of his gay son.
* Rev. Sara Thompson Tweedy is accused of being a lesbian in relationship.
* Rev. Stephen Heiss officiated at several same-sex weddings, including that of his daughter.