The Broken Rule
The United Methodist Church (of which I am a part) has elected an openly gay individual to the Episcopacy. Karen Oliveto, a pastor in the Western Jurisdiction of the UMC was elected unanimously to the office of Bishop.
My issue is not with her sexuality.
It is with rules.
By the rules of the United Methodist Church, which are collectively known as the Book of Discipline, "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" are officially prohibited from being ordained as pastors - let alone Bishop. Oliveto came out to her congregation and denomination this past year, meaning she had already been ordained. However at some point the question of her sexuality was either never brought up or ignored by her or by those in the process of ordination.
Let me again say that her sexuality is not my concern. What is is that she seems to (seems to) have knowingly broken the rules of the Discipline and, as such, put the larger denomination in the odd position of having ordained someone who is prohibited by our polity from being ordained. Then we find her elected bishop which, again, is contrary to our doctrine and polity.
Herein lies the difficulty. By UMC rules, Oliveto can face charges for her election. If she does, the LGBTQ community, which has seen her election as a "seismic shift towards LGBTQ inclusion", "a miracle", and a "glimpse of the realm of God," will likely (and legitimately, I think) feel again disenfranchised. If Oliveto does not face charges, though, the members on the more conservative side of the denomination will likely push harder for a denominational split.
I find myself perplexed and torn. Mostly because when I was ordained an elder in the United Methodist Church, I promised to uphold the Book of Discipline (which has changed significantly since I was ordained), using the same language that Oliveto would have used when she, too, was ordained. At the end of that service of ordination, we heard the words of John Wesley who said that we should keep the rules "not for wrath, but for conscience' sake." I promised to uphold those rules. What do I do in light of a governing body and part of a denomination that breaks those very rules?
I suppose part of the answer is that I keep to my promise.
I do not know what the future holds. As Rev. William Lawrence said, "I don't think schism is inevitable but I think it is more likely now than it was yesterday." At General Conference just about two months ago, it was decided that we, as a denomination, would be addressing this issue very soon. The decision of the Western Jurisdiction seems to undercut that, or at least force the issue.
Bishop Bruce Ough, president of the Council of Bishops, said, "Our differences are real and cannot be glossed over, but they are also reconcilable. We are confident God is with us, especially in uncharted times and places. There is a future with hope."
I certainly hope so.
I cannot but wonder, too, how many LGBTQ individuals have had to serve and suffer in secrecy. I cannot imagine that feeling. Yet now I fear in seeking to authenticate the feelings of a jurisdiction, the whole denomination may break before we can take our methodical time in finding a way forward.
And perhaps we would not have ever moved had this not happened. Yet I had confidence in the study the church had commissioned and believed (and maybe still do) that we will have resolutions and changes by the next meeting of the General Conference - the body where doctrine and polity are decided for the denomination.
My fear is that with the breaking of this rule, what becomes of us?
My issue is not with her sexuality.
It is with rules.
By the rules of the United Methodist Church, which are collectively known as the Book of Discipline, "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" are officially prohibited from being ordained as pastors - let alone Bishop. Oliveto came out to her congregation and denomination this past year, meaning she had already been ordained. However at some point the question of her sexuality was either never brought up or ignored by her or by those in the process of ordination.
Let me again say that her sexuality is not my concern. What is is that she seems to (seems to) have knowingly broken the rules of the Discipline and, as such, put the larger denomination in the odd position of having ordained someone who is prohibited by our polity from being ordained. Then we find her elected bishop which, again, is contrary to our doctrine and polity.
Herein lies the difficulty. By UMC rules, Oliveto can face charges for her election. If she does, the LGBTQ community, which has seen her election as a "seismic shift towards LGBTQ inclusion", "a miracle", and a "glimpse of the realm of God," will likely (and legitimately, I think) feel again disenfranchised. If Oliveto does not face charges, though, the members on the more conservative side of the denomination will likely push harder for a denominational split.
I find myself perplexed and torn. Mostly because when I was ordained an elder in the United Methodist Church, I promised to uphold the Book of Discipline (which has changed significantly since I was ordained), using the same language that Oliveto would have used when she, too, was ordained. At the end of that service of ordination, we heard the words of John Wesley who said that we should keep the rules "not for wrath, but for conscience' sake." I promised to uphold those rules. What do I do in light of a governing body and part of a denomination that breaks those very rules?
I suppose part of the answer is that I keep to my promise.
I do not know what the future holds. As Rev. William Lawrence said, "I don't think schism is inevitable but I think it is more likely now than it was yesterday." At General Conference just about two months ago, it was decided that we, as a denomination, would be addressing this issue very soon. The decision of the Western Jurisdiction seems to undercut that, or at least force the issue.
Bishop Bruce Ough, president of the Council of Bishops, said, "Our differences are real and cannot be glossed over, but they are also reconcilable. We are confident God is with us, especially in uncharted times and places. There is a future with hope."
I certainly hope so.
I cannot but wonder, too, how many LGBTQ individuals have had to serve and suffer in secrecy. I cannot imagine that feeling. Yet now I fear in seeking to authenticate the feelings of a jurisdiction, the whole denomination may break before we can take our methodical time in finding a way forward.
And perhaps we would not have ever moved had this not happened. Yet I had confidence in the study the church had commissioned and believed (and maybe still do) that we will have resolutions and changes by the next meeting of the General Conference - the body where doctrine and polity are decided for the denomination.
My fear is that with the breaking of this rule, what becomes of us?
Comments
Post a Comment