Response to the North Texans for One Church Covenant

How do we decolonize ourselves from the “Methodist Industrial Complex”? This is a question which is being seriously deliberated upon at the UM-Forward gathering this weekend. As I am kicking myself for not drumming up the money to go, I’m asking that question for myself as I tune into the livestream of a gathering of what I hope and pray becomes the new iteration of Methodism – a Church that centers POC + Q + T voices.

How do I decolonize myself from the “Methodist Industrial Complex”? Hmmm…

Earlier this week, I attended the 2019 Clergy Session of the North Texas Annual Conference. While this meeting usually happens during the afternoon before opening worship of our Annual Conference meeting, I had hoped that by moving it to another date, and expanding the time from 2 hours to approximately 5 hours, part of our focus would be on conversation around the future of Methodism. Sadly, though not shockingly, on this front I was disappointed. That said, I was THRILLED to be present to vote – with an overwhelming, near 100%, majority – for our first openly LGBTQ+ candidate to be ordained.

While not surprised by either of those events, I was surprised by an encounter with a friend/colleague who (I think?) considers themselves to be progressive, asking me to sign on to the North Texans for One Church Covenant. I told them that I could not sign on because, while encouraging the NTC to allow pastors, churches, the conference as a whole to ordain our LGBTQ+ siblings and preside at same-gender weddings – it still “intentionally” allows for pastors, churches, and even conferences to openly discriminate on the basis of sexual identity:

“It adds language that intentionally protects the religious freedom of pastors and churches who choose not to perform or host same-sex weddings and Boards of Ordained Ministry and bishops who choose not to credential or ordain self-avowed practicing homosexual persons.” (http://northtexansonechurch.org/)

Upon telling my friend that I’d be happy to have this conversation at another time (when we had more than 5 minutes to discuss it), their response has remained with me throughout the week, confirming why I continue to be unable to sign on to this covenant (as it is currently written). Because I was unable to fully address these reasons with my friend, I’d like to do so here for ALL of my North Texas clergy colleagues and lay partners/colleagues in ministry, whose work and diligence in seeking ways to move forward I greatly respect and appreciate, many of whom have signed this covenant and invited me in various ways to do the same. I understand we all have differing reasons for participating in the various forms of dissent circulating since the Traditionalist Plan passed. These are my reasons for not participating in this particular one at this particular time, as a person who benefits enormously from my privilege as a white, hetero cis-gendered clergy person in the United Methodist Church.

From the conversation mentioned above:

1.       “But what am I supposed to do when I go back to my church and a gay couple wants to get married” (come January 1 when the Traditionalist Plan goes into effect)?:

My response: “Do. The. Wedding.” At this point, this is simply non-negotiable for me. In fact, it very much became non-negotiable the moment the Third Way vote was deferred at GC2016. It was clear then that resistance would need to be more than signed statements, covenants, or resolutions at Annual Conferences. Resistance means solidarity with – and solidarity with means a willingness to put my privilege on the line. If asked to preside at a same-gender wedding, I hope and pray that ANY clergy who considers themselves to be progressive would have ZERO hesitation about saying yes at this point.

2.       “Are you going to pay my salary?” (as in, “if I were to preside at a same-gender wedding?”):

My response: I am a Deacon. Are you going to pay mine? Because I, like the vast majority of people in the world, I am not guaranteed a salary. And as much as it pains me to come to this conclusion, it is becoming increasingly clear that at the end of the day, this is the underlying factor that is driving the discussion on “unity.” Elders are scared to lose their salary/benefits/pension. I get it. That is terrifying. Particularly if you have a lot of years tied up in those things. But (for those of you working to organize signatures for this Covenant) here’s some free advice: That’s not your best argument for recruiting Deacon signatures. We live in this reality every day. I’ve had my hours/salary slashed for making the choice to go back to school.  Deacons are fired from churches ALL. THE. TIME. – in the North Texas Conference, I might add. So, my Elder friends – toughen up. Now is the time to decide whether you are going to stand for justice, or stand for your pension. It’s a complicated (and deeply personal) choice. But if it’s any consolation, I have always found that if you are really called to ministry, ministry finds a way of working itself out. It may look different than what you’ve planned – but if you are called by God, NO ONE can “fire you” from your vocation. DO ministry. Where you are. And wherever that leads you. Even if you don’t get paid for it and have to do something else, temporarily or permanently, to make ends meet. Find a way. (Can we also take a moment here to be realistic about the fact that the vast majority of us are NOT going to be asked to preside at a same-gender wedding which would occur in the tiny little window of time that exists between January 1, 2020 and GC2020? So the chances of you losing your job/pension are fairly small. But still, it would be nice for our LGBTQ+ siblings to know that a majority of their clergy really are standing in solidarity with them, rather than just throwing that word around without any real intentions of putting ourselves on the line.)

Further, if you are a white, hetero, cis-gender, male living at the top of the oppressor hierarchy – perhaps this liminal space in which we find ourselves as a denomination is a good place for you to realize…This. Is. Not. About. YOU. (Or your salary, benefits, pension.) It is long past time to center the voices of the marginalized, i.e. those voices the UM-Forward movement is centering. Right now. As I write this. In real time. Therefore, it CAN be done!

3.       “It’s a stop-gap. It protects us until the ‘new thing’ emerges from GC2020, and can be built.”

My response: This is where you have my attention, particularly if you are one of those marginalized persons who feels this will in some way benefit you. If someone – anyone – can explain to me the logistics of how this would actually work, I’M ALL EARS! As of yet, no one has been able to do so. The North Texans for One Church website lists under its purpose: 

"Our hope is that a super-majority of our clergy and lay delegates to Annual Conference will sign the covenant, giving our Bishop a clear indication of how we want to live together as an Annual Conference."

My questions: What exactly does that mean??? And how is it that a bunch of people signing a Covenant, or even voting that Covenant in as a Resolution at Annual Conference, would be legally binding in any way? Why would we not simply (and to some degree, have we not been?) operate in that way – and let the chips fall where they may? Why expend all this energy on a movement that’s not actually moving anything? The NTC does not determine the rules of the denomination. We can say we’re going to operate like One Church Plan all we want – it doesn’t stop someone (within or outside of our Conference) from filing a complaint. My understanding is that the difficulty within the NTC in fully living into this kind of space has always been that we are situated within the South Central Jurisdiction. Am I right? If so, then our AC signing or voting on such a measure DOES. NOT. PROTECT. ANYTHING OR ANYONE. (If someone can explain to me how I am incorrect about this, please, please do so! This is where you may have a chance to convince me to sign this thing!!!)

4.       “The problem with progressives is that as long as everyone stays in their own camp and doesn’t come together, we won’t get anything done. This is why the Traditionalist Plan won. When women only vote for women, Black people only vote for Black people, LGBTQ+ people only vote for LGBTQ+ people…that’s how traditionalists sneak in their candidates to General Conference delegations. That’s not justice.”

My response: “I see what you’re saying (only in so far as being smart/strategic about which persons represent each of those groups and where their values lie) – but the ONLY way women, or Black people, or LGBTQ+ people, or…. have EVER gotten representation at ANYTHING is when they have banded together to force a seat at the table.” (Or created their own table.)

Furthermore: WRONG! The Traditionalist Plan did not win because the progressive camp (in this case, Simple Plan supporters) voted the One Church Plan down. The Traditionalist Plan won precisely because there were not enough One Church Plan supporters willing to also vote the Simple Plan as a top priority on the initial prioritizing vote. That could have been a game-changer in terms of how the rest of the Conference flowed. Instead, the “centrists” assumed they had more votes to win from pulling more Simple Plan votes over – but guess what? When the later vote was taken it showed the Simple Plan votes were already there. The true progressives were willing to entertain the idea of baby-steps (once again!) while centrists claiming to be progressive and progressives claiming to be centrists couldn’t bother themselves to show their support for the truly liberative movement…even when taking a priority vote where they could have included both options. That said, it’s quite probable the Traditionalist Plan would have won out in the end anyway. For this, we can thank the One Church Plan voters for moving us toward the (likely) inevitable in a more direct and timely fashion. That is not sarcasm. What I mean by that is perhaps the Spirit was at work all along in those votes, revealing to us the painfully inevitable, and perhaps we need to be willing to accept what the Spirit is trying to tell us about our denomination as it currently stands…

Outside of this conversation, I have heard others say signing/voting on the One Church Plan for the NTC is like taking the pulse of where our Conference stands. My concern with this is that we already took that “middle ground” pulse THREE YEARS AGO, when we voted by in support of a resolution that essentially said we would live in this way while the Council of Bishops and the Way Forward Commission did its work (read the amended resolution plus the letter signed by clergy here:http://ntcumcunity.blogspot.com/). Since that time, my husband and others had charges filed against them for doing as little as celebrating the reaffirmation of a gay couple – not celebrating their actual wedding, which took place several year prior in another state – but simply being their pastors and rejoicing in their continued love and fidelity. Gee, what a crime! So perhaps a strong drive in my hesitation to sign this covenant is based in the work I did as one of the co-authors of that resolution, which was essentially a watered-down version of the statement we really wanted to make in support of full inclusion, but felt pressured to compromise in order to get the “win.” I live with the regret of that decision every day. But if that vote did any good, the good it did has already been done. Why on earth would we need to take that pulse again? The One Church Plan failed at GC2019, and we all know we will not have the votes to pass any similar legislation in 2020. If we are going to sign a covenant, or take a vote, the time has come (and is long overdue) to be brave enough to publicly state where we stand. 

So finally, I say: Give me a break. We are never going to live into this fairy-tale of “live and let live” as an Annual Conference within the South Central Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church until there is actual, legally binding polity on a denominational level – whoever that denomination may consist of, and whatever it may be named – which allows us to do so. Furthermore, if such polity could be legislated at a denominational level – would we really want to live in that space? Where, depending on who our Bishop is or who our BOM consists of at any given time, they could choose not to ordain people based on their sexual identity? Is that really the “new movement” so-called progressives/centrists want to encourage???

In the meantime, those of us who live on the side of privilege can, as the UM-Forward Movement encouraged at it’s gathering today, choose to live in solidarity with those whom the Church is oppressing – or we can continue to support the false god of unity for the sake of numbers (or worse, the sake of money). We can ask ourselves the difficult question – how did we get the numbers in the first place? What did we have to give up in order to gain so much moderation?

As Womanist theologian M. Shawn Copeland proclaims, “Solidarity is a wrenching task: to stand up for justice in the midst of injustice and domination; to take up simplicity in the midst of affluence and comfort; to embrace integrity in the midst of collusion and co-optation; to contest the gravitational pull of domination.”[1]

For me, this quote has become a mantra in the work I am trying to do at a scholarly level, and the work I still participate in as a pastor. Do I fall short of this goal? Every. Damn. Day. But at least on this matter, I have not yet been convinced to sign the North Texans for One Church Covenant. Because for me, my signature is a sign of my integrity. And as is so often the case, the voice of a Womanist theologian best articulates my call and my vocation. I want to be a part of a Church that is willing and working to center such voices. Copeland’s words are the answer, for me, to the question of “How do I decolonize myself from the Methodist Industrial Complex?”

---

[1] M. Shawn Copeland, “Toward a Critical Christian Feminist Theology of Solidarity,” in Women and Theology, ed. Mary Ann Hinsdale and Phyllis H. Kaminski (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1995), 18.