As I reflect back on the month of June and everything that happened within it, two specific events stand out in my mind: Annual Conference and JAM Camp.
The first is Annual Conference. Now, as many of you know, I was commissioned as a provisional elder of the United Methodist Church at the Annual Conference of the Southwest Texas Conference this year. We met in Corpus Christi, right off of the beach, and tried as hard as possible to engage in Kingdom work together. This should have been a joyous occasion for me and others, as we took the next steps together in working toward ordination. But that celebration was marred by an ugly incident that happened on the first day of conference and impacted the rest of the week. You see, the Austin District Committee on Ministry, one of the groups that would-be ordinands out of the Austin area meet with along the process, sought to certify a candidate for ordained ministry after she told them that she is a lesbian in a committed partnership. My guess, without actually speaking to any of them, is that they saw this as an opportunity to address a justice issue within the UMC: our Discipline does not allow self-avowed practicing homosexuals to be ordained, and since this marginalizes and alienates people from the church, they felt that this needs to be changed. Since they acted contrary to what the Book of Discipline said, though the Board of Ordained Ministry struck her name from the roster of certified candidates. In the following uproar, there was a vote among all of the clergy, and (by a very slim majority--like 5 people) the Board of Ordained Ministry's ruling was upheld, and Mary Ann Kaiser was a ministry candidate no more.
Now, this is a hot-button issue that breaks my heart, and there is so much that is wrong about what happened, but one of the saddest parts of it for me is that our church is divided over this issue in ways that are painful and--honestly--sinful. For the rest of the conference, no matter where I was in the building or who I was with, it did not take long at all for the topic of "that lesbian candidate from Austin" to come up in conversation. I honestly didn't even know her name for the first few days of conference, because no one was speaking of her by name. She was the issue, not a person. People on both sides of the issue were angry that this had happened, and neither seemed, for the most part, to be handling it correctly. People were paying very close attention to who voted which way, and the amount of backhanded and cutting remarks made behind other people's backs was horrible! Now, remember, this is a group comprised of the clergy and lay leadership of the Southwest Texas Methodist Conference. The world is supposed to know us by our love! And yet I left that conference wondering if anyone would have guessed, by looking in on our meetings and interactions, that we were disciples of Jesus Christ.
The second event was JAM Camp. This is the conference Junior High summer camp. The very same camp where, thirteen years ago, I answered the call God was placing on my life to ordained ministry. This camp is near and dear to my heart, and I was so excited to be able to come back to this camp so many years later--not as a camper or even as a counselor--but as the dean of the camp. I was coming back to serve where God had so clearly spoken to me, and to make matters even more exciting, my little sister, Katherine, was coming as a camper! As excited as I was about this week and all of the amazing things that I knew God was going to do, I was also a little hesitant. You see, I knew the people in charge of the camp, and I knew that most of them had been at Annual Conference with me. I also knew, because I had just finished having some hard conversations with a number of them, that most of them fell on the other side of specific theological issues than I do. I wanted this to be a phenomenal time of ministry as we served God together, but I would be lying if I did not admit that I was a little worried about what the Annual Conference fallout might be on camp.
And you know what? I had no reason whatsoever to worry about it. You see, even though we had our theological differences, we worshipped and served the same God--a God who is so much bigger than the rifts we create within the body of Christ. Even though we did not agree on everything, we could still come to the table of our Savior, and there serve each other the eucharistic meal that reminded us again of God's ultimate sacrifice for us. Even though we stood at different sides of a hot-button issue, we were able to embrace each other in the name of Jesus Christ. And you know what else? I was absolutely right about one thing. God came in miraculous ways that week. Lives were changed forever, and we witnessed both youth and adults commit for the first time their lives to Christ. It was amazing. It was restorative. It was what church is all about.
These two week-long occasions stand in stark contrast in my mind for a number of reasons. One is simply the nature of why we thought we were gathered together. You see, at Annual Conference, many--if not most--of the people present hold to a warped view of that time as a necessary occurrence to fulfill the obligation of completing the business of the church. It's about legislation, voting, and hearing reports. Yes, there are times of worship interspersed throughout, but ironically enough, a large percentage of this group of pastors and lay leaders had more important things to do during those times of worship, like go to the beach or enjoy a meal together. They were ever present during the business sessions, but did not seem to place as much emphasis on the times of worship. We, as a whole, seem to have forgotten the main reason for these yearly gatherings. At camp, though, we were there to encounter God. We were there to worship, to fellowship, and to grow in our walks with Christ and our walks with each other. These were our reasons for gathering together, and this changed how we engaged each activity.
The biggest difference (at least in my mind) between Annual Conference and JAM Camp, though, was that at camp, we as the leadership did not let our differences get in the way of our work. Disagreements were set aside for the greater work of bringing the Gospel to those who might not ever have heard it before, of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. We were doing Kingdom work, and we refused to let anything else interfere with that.
We were Peter and Paul, standing together even though we were in opposition on the issue of circumcision, for we knew that there was something even more important.
Now, please, don't read me wrong. I fully believe that issues like the church's stance on homosexuality or abortion or capital punishment are extremely important. They are justice issues, and honestly sometimes it blows my mind that we cannot read the same calls to action when we dive into Scripture together (and I know that those who believe contrary to me feel the same way, by the way). We absolutely should be having the conversations and working in all things to bring the will of God and the love of Jesus Christ to the world. But there will always be a deeper issue for me, one that everything else should stem out of, and that is sharing with the world that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that he loved all of us enough to die for us that we might have life abundantly in him. If I have not done a good enough job of getting this point across, I have no right whatsoever to bring my voice into any other discussion.
My prayer is that the church will more like JAM Camp and less like Annual Conference. My prayer is that the Peters and Pauls and Jameses and Johns and Timothys and whoever else will always be able to put their differences aside and come to the table of our Lord together, hand in hand. For we are the church, and we are not called to be a body at war with itself.
I heard about it from this article. Since you were there you might have more insight but the Chronicle does great journalism (better than the daily paper here) and they point to the fact that she was not denied in the proper way as being the big point of contention for her supporters.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2013-06-28/methodist-youth-director-denied-ordination/
Yeah... I read the article, and I have heard that argument. The point of contention as I understand it comes up to a specific question on what the District Committee on Ministry is. Is it an extension of the Board of Ordained Ministry, or is it its own body? If it is an extension of BOOM, then it has to follow the same criteria that BOOM follows and must act accordingly. Therefore, they could not have sent her through and therefore BOOM didn't do anything out of order. If DCOM is not an extension of BOOM, though, then yes, she probably should have been interviewed.
ReplyDeleteBut that's not really the point. The point should be that the way in which it was handled by both parties--not everyone, mind you, but the majority of each side--was not prayerful and not done out of love. That was why, for me at least, it was so heart-breaking.
It is my understanding that the Board of Ordained Ministry voted to revoke her certification (a close vote too: 124-119). So if they were the ones who voted to deny her clergy bid and they did not follow their own rules then I am confused how the District Committee on Ministry plays into this part of it exactly. I'm curious how the other side handled it. I have only seen interviews with the candidate in question so I don't know what happened in Corpus. Is pointing out the hypocrisy of them saying she doesn't meet the guidelines for a candidate vis-à-vis the Book of Discipline in a way that itself doesn't meet the guidelines for this issue that are laid out in the same book the part that was not done out of love? Is there something else specifically that you are referring to? Is everyone equally at fault and handle it equally poorly or did one side stick out in any way in their handling of it? What does having this conversation look like? What does putting aside differences while having this conversation look like? What does being on the "losing" side look like? What does being on the "winning" side look like? What happens if you truly, deeply, and honestly believe that the side that prevails is wrong? If loving God and each other despite our differing views is the most important thing then why even bother with a bureaucracy and hierarchy?
ReplyDeleteI ask because if the point isn't that she was denied but how it happened, what lessons are to be learned, and how the conversation about sexual orientation within the church is going to move forward. You don't have to call out specific people but calling out specific actions could be helpful.
This is why I love you, Dylan. You ask the right questions.
ReplyDeleteSo my first thought in writing this post was not to focus on the issue itself but how it was handled after the fact and the impact that it had on the conference. I realize that to do that, though, I need to give some background. First, the District Committee on Ministry (DCOM) was the body that voted to have Mary Ann certified as a candidate even after (and some have even stipulated in part because of the fact that) she shared with them that she is a self-avowed practicing lesbian in a committed relationship. Then, when the Board of Ordained Ministry (BOOM) met in session before Annual Conference, they voted after much prayer and conversation to strike her name from the roster. This was then challenged during the clergy session, where a vote was held on whether or not to uphold BOOM's decision. The vote was 124 in favor of upholding and 119 against, so her name was struck from the record.
One group is saying that what BOOM did was out of line because according to Discipline, she has to be interviewed as a candidate before they can make a decision on whether to allow her to continue her candidacy or refuse her further progress. The other group is saying that it's a moot point because DCOM did not have the right to push her through in first place because DCOM, as an extension of BOOM, is bound by the same regulations per Discipline. (Thus my comment above about the issue becoming really whether or not DCOM is an extension of BOOM).
That is what the two groups are saying. Meanwhile, my struggle was the fact that this volatile issue was not covered in prayer and that people were speaking out of anger and out of division instead of seeking unity and common ground in the midst of diversity. It seemed like both during the clergy session where this took place and throughout the conference afterwards, we forgot that we were discussing real people, and that Christ first called us to show love before we ever start thinking of trying reform (where reformation is needed). It was as if we were arguing over seating arrangements instead of celebrating that a feast was waiting before us.
I honestly don't know what the right way to handle this is... All I know is that what happened on the whole at Annual Conference was not right. I will say this, though, when it is done right, it will be saturated in prayer and worship of the Most High. That is my entire point with this blog post. AC and JAM Camp were two different events handled in two different ways (not by everyone, but seemingly by the majority of people on each side). I think that we as the church should strive toward the latter rather than the former. Then and only then will we see true change and true church.
My fear is that no matter how this is handled, though, and no matter what is ultimately decided, this is going to lead to a fracture in the United Methodist Church. This is something I am dreading--not because roughly half of the clergy will risk losing pension or housing or whatever, but because it will mean that we've finally made our differences bigger than our God.
As far as specific actions, man I don't know. It gets hard. I mean, Bishop Dorf hit the nail on the head in his ruling (found at http://www.umcswtx.org/decision-law-pastoral). Legislative change of this magnitude in the UMC happens in one place: General Conference. This church-wide meeting that happens once a year is only place where the Book of Discipline can be changed. And until it does, United Methodists who stand in opposition of it have two choices: they can 1. work openly against the Discipline and risk being brought up on charges or they can 2. work within the bounds of the discipline to enact the change they wish to see. The first can have harsh consequences for the individuals and their churches, whereas the second can stretch out into a process that never sees completion. It is probably the more painful of the two choices, but it is, in my opinion, the only correct way to go if you seek change. The only other choice is to change denominations.
ReplyDelete