LGBTQIA and the United Methodist Church

So, in the case you don't know this about me, I have a habit of addressing the elephant in the room by taking its hand, pulling it out of the corner to the group present, and giving it a name.  I can't say that I do this with every elephant (because who has the emotional energy to do that all the time), but I do prefer just to approach some pieces head on rather than talk about things obliquely.  Our taboo on discussing death, religion, racism, sex, and politics has developed generations of people who don't know how to intelligently discuss any of those topics.

This specific elephant deals with both religion and sexuality.

For those that are not aware, the United Methodist Church held/is holding General Conference this weekend, basically a big meeting where certain decisions are made for the whole of the denomination.  As of writing this, I'm not sure what the result will be from those discussions, but here are the big things that the church is discussing:

1. Should "self-avowed, practicing" LGBTQIA persons be allowed into ordination (i.e. become pastors)?
2. Should United Methodist churches be allowed to perform weddings of LGBTQIA individuals that at least don't appear to be heteronormative?  
3. If both of these are officially declined, how should churches be punished for breaking these rules?

There's so much to unpack here.  I was more than a little shocked myself to learn that there was some specific verbiage put into the Discipline (the rules book of the UMC) prohibiting points one and two in the 70s and 80s.  While some places have been enforcing those rules, there are definitely pockets where they're ignored, civil disobedience style.  There was a provision that if, for example, a gay man agreed not to "practice a homosexual lifestyle" that they could be ordained, though more and more places seem to be dropping that verbiage.  

I'm livid that this is such a point of debate.  I tend to describe the UMC as a more liberal, progressive church community, knowing that there are pockets that always lean more one way or the other, though I suppose that "more" is more relative than I had realized.  I don't give a fuck who anyone is sleeping with, provided that consent is present.  It's none of my damn business.  If a heterosexual couple was told that they could be ordained provided they promised to never have sex again, does that properly highlight how ludicrous that restrict stands?  

IF I agreed with the concept that homosexuality is a sin and we don't want unapologetic sinners leading the church, I demand to know why this particular line in the sand is drawn, given that pastors are, well, human.  When we keep statements in the Discipline like this, we accept the "othering" of these persons, which ultimately translates into aggression against these persons, always easier when you see an individual as less than human.  Chapters from Leviticus are thrown around, about how these persons are abominations, but I don't see the same kind of fervency picketing Red Lobster and their Shrimp Fest (Leviticus 11: 10,12).  Similarly, Jesus had a few things to say about divorce that don't have the same cultural relevance that they used to either.  I have a term for individuals who seem to be selective in what to enforce in the Bible:  Buffet Christians.  It seems like they've gone through the buffet line loading up on mashed potatoes and ice cream and skipping out on the asparagus, brussel sprouts, sirloin, whathaveyou.  Again, assuming the argument momentarily that homosexuality is a sin, looking at the Bible in context I see a lot more of Jesus including the "undesirables" rather than rebuking them for their lifestyle.  

Here's the truth:  I believe that pearl-clutching around homosexuality is eventually going to die down, as more and more of my generation and Gen Z'ers simply don't have the same degree of prejudice that previous generations did.  This is not to say that it homophobia will magically not be a problem anymore--far from it--but Millennials and Gen Z'ers tend to lean more toward agreement that being an asshole to gay people (being an asshole defined here as behaviors such as supporting gay conversion therapy, physically or emotionally bullying someone based on their sexual orientation, discriminating against gay couples for adoption, insisting that gay relationships are not valid, etc) is firmly putting oneself on the wrong side of history.  It's still important for those that can to use our privilege to insist upon equality for all LGBTQIA persons.  I think about the LGBTQIA persons in my life, and how I love them, how I want them to have all of the rights and protections and tax benefits and recognition and respect that I wish every person had.  They are not less than a married heterosexual couple compliantly riding the relationship escalator.  I have talked to so many people in my life that have been hurt by their church, where a place that preached love made it clear that love excluded them.  We, the United Methodist Church, used to exclude black people and black pastors and recognized the need to update those pieces of the Discipline; we used to bar women from ordination and similarly updated those pieces of the Discipline; this is the next line of things that needs to be corrected into a more just, inclusive, and Wesleyan picture, bringing in ALL of the Body of Christ.  We who know that God loves everybody are called to act like it.

My ideal version of events from General Conference would be to strip this verbage clear out of the Discipline, permitting unequivocally points 1 and 2 above.  Regardless of what happens, presuming a decision is made and is tabled for another conference, churches and individuals will leave.  Some of the plans for how these decisions might happen allows for individual churches to decide.  If our individual church were to go the "Traditionalist Route," Andy and I are gone without a second thought; I strongly doubt ours would, which is why we're relatively active persons in it.  Hell, if the whole denomination goes traditionalist, I'm not sure if I'd want to say.  If we go toward a progressive and more loving and inclusive stance, those not ready to do that will leave.  They would always be welcome back, but we're back to the not tolerating intolerance component of things.  The individual is welcome; being an asshole to other people based on their sexual orientation is not.  

Again, as of writing this, the results are not available.  The General Conference includes people from around the world and their own cultural biases with them.  I would want us to make a clear, inclusive stance, to even help guide change in those communities, too.  Easy for me to say here, in the relative safety of free speech, sure, but refusing to "other" a group of persons is a powerful statement for a community to make, even if just to start that conversation that perhaps one's biases and societal training on this matter were not wholly correct.  

John Wesley set these guidelines:  "Do no harm.  Do all the good you can.  Stay in love with Christ."  That "Do no harm" piece, that includes not not doing something that needs to be done, like a lie by omission still counts as lying.  Allowing this discrimination to continue is harmful.  People are being hurt in the time being.  Not addressing it is harmful, as that resentment continues to fester.  

This is where I am stuck on the personal level:  I don't want to be labeled intolerant/intransigent/inflexible/ungracious for refusing to broker intolerant people.  I want to make homophobia a lonely hobby.  I want to make racism, sexism, ableism, etc. lonely hobbies.  I delight in taking someone's racist joke and politely playing dumb, asking them to explain it to me as they make an ass of themselves trying to explain that that's what this group of persons is just like, you know?  Otherwise, by accepting the behavior, I nonverbally accept the feelings behind it, just as when I was teaching, failing to stop a student's teasing is nonverbally granting its permission to continue.  I won't exclude persons that choose to embody these ideals, but I won't support that particular behavior.

This is some tough love, tough to give and tough to take.  I accept the LGBTQIA persons in my life as they are how they were made--whole and beautiful--and as they love who they love.  It's none of my damn business what any of them do in the bedroom.  

I hope to have some good news on this soon.

-------
Notes after the above was written, between Monday night and Tuesday morning:
Seems like that the "Traditional Plan" has been passed in some capacity, meaning that LGBTQIA persons are not allowed to be ordained nor married in the United Methodist Church AND churches not enforcing that are likely to receive disciplinary action.  What the fuck, United Methodist Church?  I know that the General Conference includes countries and cultures that still murder LGBTQIA individuals, but that seems like a bullshit excuse to me--Christianity is illegal in some countries, too, and those persons practicing it there don't use it as an excuse to give up.  Hiding Jews in the holocaust was illegal as was sheltering persecuted indigenous persons, but that didn't stop some congregations.  to exclude these persons is bigotry--it might seem okay because they can still come to church but low-key bigotry is still bigotry.  I had hoped better of the General Conference, setting an example of love and inclusivity.  This decision does not reflect the church I know nor the Jesus I know.  

In keeping with the sentiment above, that not condemning a situation is a kind of acceptance, I say the following, more restrained version toward the General Conference:  Shame on you.  You are on the wrong side of history, and I will not passively accept that information.  

For those rejoicing in this moment, this is a temporary "win."  The civil disobedience and calls for justice will only grow louder and stronger.  We're not done yet.  Not by a long shot.

Also, it is possible yet that this plan will be called unconstitutional and will yet be thrown out on those grounds--I'm not fully sure what this means yet, but it is mentioned as a potential ray of hope as of now, Tuesday morning on the 27th of February.  There are more pieces yet to fall, waiting to see what schisms form and how our particular conference and individual church will respond.  For the time being, though, I exercise my right to be angry, to feel heartsore, to feel disgusted, to mourn, and shed a few more tears.

Some additional reading:  Article A Article B