Methodist opinions wanted: Lesbian pastor on trial

In My Humble Opinion
1

Lesbian minister on trial.

I no longer have a dog in this fight, but both Mrs. Mercotan and I were raised Methodist, were married in the Methodist church, and remember or denomination of origin as being fairly progressive. We’ve since moved on to Unitarianism.

So we were both distressed to see this latest headline. I remembered another lesbian Methodist minister being acquitted in ecclesiastical court about a year ago, and I had (apparently naively) thought that incremental progress was continuing in said denomination.

I’d like to ask the Methodist dopers to comment on this. What is your reaction to this? Over the top? High time to get tough on this practice which is “incompatible with Christian teaching”? How does your congregation stand on this issue?

Thanks!

QtM

2

I was raised Methodist too although I am Episcopalian now for family reasons. I am a little disappointed but not terribly surprised that this happened in the Methodist church. They are progressive on most issues. However, the Episcopalian church is arguably even more progressive than the Methodist church and it is still causing problems with the church to have its first openly gay priest serving in New Hampshire. I would bet that it will come around in time.

3

Nitpick: I believe you mean “first openly gay bishop.”

4

I am hugely disappointed in the Methodist church, as I was the last time this issue arose. It’s become patently obvious that we can no longer just ignore the issue and pretend that there is no substantial disagreement among the members of the church. From talking to the members of my own church, most of whom are visibly uncomfortable discussing the issue at all, I’d venture a guess that about 20% think the church is wrong and will say so, maybe 30% think it’s right and will say so, and the rest wish we’d just shut up about things that make them uncomfortable so that we can plan the next potluck or craft fair.

The last time the issue arose and the phrase, “incompatible with Christian teaching” was reiterated, I seriously considered leaving the Methodist church. I stayed after talking to my pastor, who pointed out that if all the members of the laity who oppose the leadership’s decision simply leave, the church will become even less progressive. My children and I have friends at church, too, and it would be a huge disruption in our lives. However, if the church leadership chooses to harden their position and reiterate their opposition to loving, committed gay relationships, I’m afraid I’ll no longer have a dog in this fight, either.

5

Well, I see she’s been convicted. Thanks to the all the Methodist dopers who replied.

6

For what it’s worth, which isn’t much, those few members of my mother’s United Methodist congregation who are under the age of 60 seem to think that homosexuality is a non-issue.

The pastor, however, who I had previously considered fairly open-minded about such things, took advantage of his time preaching at my sister’s wedding to slip in a jab at gays.

7

Thanks for posting this and reminding me to check in on this issue, Qadgob. I saw the update for the opening of the trial on UMC.org, the denomination’s official website yesterday, but I hadn’t had time and then forgot to check again.

My relationship with the church universal has been pretty strained and remote on my side for over a year now, but I am still on the roles of a United Methodist congregation somewhere, and I attend a UM seminary. Until a year and a half ago, I was planning to be ordained a UM pastor. And I actually attended services this Sunday, for the first time in months. So I think I can voice an opinion or two here.

I have very mixed feelings about the results of this trial. On the one hand, I believe very strongly that the chuch should be welcoming and supportive towards our GLBT brothers and sisters. I think the church law under which Beth Stroud has been tried is wrong and immoral.

So why the ambivalence? Partly, at least, because as the recent thread on Constitutional law has taught me, I lean slightly towards strict constructionism. The law is a bad one, but it is the law, and it unfortunately reflects the will of the church right now. (NB–Despite what InternetLegend says, this is not a something being imposed from above. See below.) The jurisprudence that led to the aquittal in the Damman trial earlier this year was frankly bad. (And unlike an earlier, similar decision, wasn’t wonderfully inspired and creative bad jurisprudence.) The Judicial Council, United Methodism’s “supreme court,” has, without usually overturning these decisions, been closing the loopholes (correctly, given their mandate and church law). After the Damman trial, they basically said that the law means what it says and that anyone who will not return a guilty verdict when the agreed upon facts demand one must recuse onself from church investigative committees and juries.

As I said, this isn’t something that has been imposed on the church. Church discipline is voted on by the General Conference, which is composed of equal numbers of clergy and laity. Bishops preside, but have neither voice nor vote. As in many denominations, the leadership probably leans slightly to the left of the overall membership. The real split (as in politics in the US) is geographic. Unlike US politics, the larger-membership jurisdictions are more conservative. In the last General Conference a few months ago (they meet every four years), conservatives succeeded in getting more proportional representation, and hence a more conservative body. They also reaffirmed the rules on homosexuality and ammended them to eliminate ambiguity.

It is also worth noting that the Rev. Beth Stroud knew what she was doing and what she was getting into. The United Methodist Church has a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. While this is no less unjust than a policy of objective discrimination, it means that Ms. Stroud took the steps herself that led to her trial. In my opinion, this means that she is to be honored for her honesty and courage, rather than pitied, despite the obvious pain this must have caused her.

All of the all of the churches I’ve attended regularly have been open and affirming towards GLBT people. At seminary, it is talked about more privately than publically. There is a very active GLBTA group on campus. Opinions are very diverse. (And only 60% of the student body is United Methodist.) One of my friends was forced to abandon a call to ministry because his little niece proudly anounced to the wrong gathering, “That’s my gay uncle B-------!” Nearly everyone is respectful of both sides, but I know there have been many painful incidents.

I used to believe that anyone opposed to gay rights was an immoral bigot. I eventually realized that people on both sides of the issue have struggled with issues of compassion, justice, self-identity, and faithfulness. Of course there is also a good share of close-minded bigoty, the preponderance if not the entirety of which is on one side.

So how should United Methodists respond? What should have happened at the trial? When laws are unjust civil disobediance is in order. But civil disobediance must be honest. It must be public. It must entail a willingnes to edure the real concequences of one’s actions. These are, I believe, basic principles of civil dispbedience as it was practiced by Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and their followers; I am in no position to dictate to others what they should be willing to do; I have no position within The United Methodist Church which binds me to their Discipline, therefore I cannot perform civil disobedience. I know that of the 66 members of the jury pool, all clergy, 14 refused to serve because they disagreed with the Discipline of the church.

Beth Stroud knew what she was doing and she has suffered the concequences of her act. Perhaps this act is best seen as civil disobedience and as Christ-like willingness to endure unjust punishment for the sake of bringing healing to a community. I have read nothing yet that specifically indicates to me that she saw herself as acting for the sake of the church as opposed to herself and her own sense of integrity, but I must believe that she believes that she was led by God to come out to her church, as God led her to ordination in an unwelcoming denomination. If this is so, surely God leads both her and us towards healing, wholeness, and reconcilliation, and surely God can bring those things even out of this trial.

8

I used to be Methodist too. However, progressive as they were, relatively speaking, they weren’t progressive enough (my disbelief in virgin birth and resurrection kind of gets in the way as well). This latest decision is a shining example of that. I think I’ll write them a letter and mention that.

I’d like to see some people grow some balls and create some schisms. That would rock.

9

When hubby and I were dating, he was planning to become a UM minister. He had his layspeakers license. Their treatment of me at a Methodist college convinced him to break with them. I was being stalked by a football player there and asked the college to do something about it, so they labeled me as insane and kicked me out. They told hhubby that if he chose to marry me, then he would not have a career in the church.

This was not just because of my conflict with them, but because they felt that a disabled person could not be both a minister and married. We were warned multiple occasions that it was unseemly for a disabled person to be showing affection in public, that it was disturbing people. The displays were the occasional kiss or hug, in a lobby full of couples lying on top of each other, making out and ll but having sex. They made it very clear to me that because hubby was disabled, we should not date.

Hubby had a disabled friend that was already a Methodist minister. The church did not want him to be a minister with a congregration, but rather wanted him to travel and give inspirational speeches. To me it seemed they wanted a side show they could use to showcase how progressive they were.

The preacher at that college preach multiple times that homosexuality was wrong and warned against even close friendships with someone of the same sex. It was not an occasional topic, but rather seemed to be his topic of choice when talking to groups of young people. He was not an old man either, but I would guess in his 30s.

10

Thanks again for the further replies.

Thanks especially for your introspective input, Alan Smithee.

But like Strainger, I too could no longer accept their credo. And even if I did accept the idea of Jesus as divine, I think this latest stuff would still drive me out. Is there any other Christian denomination besides UCC which is open to gay and lesbian clergy without self-destructing? (No, don’t mention UU, I’m already there, and we’re pretty much not christian).

11

The NY Times headline today (I am not making this up) was, “UNITED METHODISTS MOVE TO DEFROCK LESBIAN.”

12

Disappointed. Not surprised. But still hopeful that eventually church leadership will reverse itself on a minister’s homosexuality being incompatible with church teaching. I have no statistics on what percentage of membership would support the ordination of gay and lesbian ministers, but my own feeling is that the numbers of those who do are not insignificant. It has been and will continue to be a slow, cultural transition, among the Methodists, among other churches and in American society in general.

13

I’m sorry to hear about your experiences lee. I have a friend (unfortunately no longer in seminary) who was very interested in the theology of disability. There are definitely people in the church who are working very hard to make sure those sorts of things never happen again. I wish I could tell you that that sort of thing was rare, but the truth is, I don’t know. I’m surprised by what you described, but I’m not physically disabled, and bigotry like that is often invisable except to those it’s directed at. I can say that it isn’t representative at all of the United Methodists I know.

It’s also worth mentioning that there really is no such thing as a United Methodist college in a strict sense today. There are UM-related schools, but the degree of relationship varies quite a bit and is often fairly nominal. AFAIK, the church doesn’t directly control any school.

In response to JonScribe, I want to reiterate that the refusal to recognize homosexuals’ calls to ordained ministry is not something being promulgated by the church’s leadership. Many bishops and many clergy have engaged in protests and civil disobedience at General Conference and other church gatherings. The split is not hierarchical but geographic, parallelling the red state/blue state devide) but with churches in Western states generally on the liberal side. Unfortunately, while the red state are less populous, “red conferences” in the South have far more members than churches in the rest of the country, and delegates from the Southeastern Jurisdiction have been an extraordinarily powerful voting bloc in General Conference. Nevertheless, their is a lot of support for recognizing GLBT rights at all levels of church structure and in many of the denomination’s agencies and organizations.

To Strainger and Qadgop, I’ll add that theological tolerance is also geography dependant, but many congregations, and even annual conferences would not be bothered at all by a UU/humanist approach to Christianity. Apart from the current official stance on homosexuality, United Methodism really is a big-tent church, moreso even than Episcopalianism, I think. We even have our own couterpart to Bishop Spong, though he hasn’t managed (or tried) to create nearly as much controversy. Someone tried to get him charged with heresy, but he just couldn’t make the accusation fly.

Personally, I struggle with divinity per se, more than the divinty of Jesus. I’m also a bit hung up on the Resurection. At one point I was convinced I was an atheist, but now I’m not so sure. My beliefs haven’t changed much, but understanding of them has. Fodder for another thread I suppose. Nevertheless, if I hadn’t started to question whether by beliefs were truely Christian, I’m pretty sure I could have completed my candidacy for ordination and had a successful ministry in The United Methodist Church without ever actually being dishonest about anything. Sometimes I think maybe I still could.

PS–Sorry for mistyping your name Qadgop. It was four in the morning.

14

The college “has a covenant relationship with the United Methodist Church.” That is according to the college.

15

I forgot to add, that another Methodist minister with a church not that far from the college, but not the nearest one either, refused to baptise me after we had met with him on more than one occasion and had set up a date for it to happen. He had agreed to do it and backed out last minute and asked me not to come to his church. He cited the unpleasantness at the college.

16

I obviously can’t comment on what happened to you, lee,, since I wasn’t there and don’t know the details. Denying someone baptism strikes me as an extraordinay measure. It sounds like a pretty major misunderstanding, which of course can happen anywhere. I’m not sure you should blame the denomination for it. (But then again, without knowing the details, I’m not sure you shouldn’t.)

17

There was no misunderstanding. They were very clear about it. There were legal letters involved as well as very clear threats made to me in person by those at the college. The minister not directly associated with the college refusing to baptize me after he had agreed to, asking me not to come to his church, was pretty damn clear too. It showed me that it was more than a small group at one college. It showed me that a minister would withhold a sacrament to someone who was being inconvenient to the church.

I am grateful now, as I decided that my own heart was a far superior moral compass than anything the Methodist church had to offer. Recent events have done nothing but strengthen that belief. I am very grateful that they showed their true colors so soon to my husband and turned him away from the ministry.

18

God this makes me so sad.

I too had a long talk with my pastor and his wife after the last trial, and I was pissed off. To my relief, so were they (although I knew they would be, deep down). They have done tons of work with AIDS hospice patients and do not agree with the church’s stand on homosexuality.

We discussed people leaving the church over things like this, versus staying and trying to “change from within.”

“Open hearts, open minds, open doors”… hell, who are we kidding? We’ll go to the wall for oppressed people in the Third World, but will continue to keep people down right here at home.

Deb, very unhappy Methodist

19

lee, I didn’t mean to excuse anyone by calling it a misunderstanding. I have not the slightest doubt but that it is possible that the president or dean of the college was a bigoted, power-hungry ecclesiastic with loyal friends and toadies throughout the Annual Conferance, and that you stepped on the wrong toe and were hit with by an ecclesiastical steamroller. Such things do happen. It is also possible that they were justified, or that you misinterprited or misrepresented their actions, or any number of other things. You may know which of these is the case, but I certainly don’t; not by reading messages on an anonymous Internet message board. What any of these possabilities says about a denomination of over 11 million people is entirely unclear to me, and this probably isn’t thread in which to work that out. (Unless Qadgop is interested.)

As for suggestions of schism or leaving the UMC, I think the situaltion is further analagous to the recent US elections. I no more intend to leave the church (at least over this issue) than to emigrate because of the election. Despite the devide, most states, couties, conferences, and congregations are purple, with mixed and devided feelings on the issues. Nevertheless, we continue to live, work and pray together as communities, and to stumble usually (if not always or consistently) in the right direction. On this issue in particular, I am convinced that progress is coming and in fact already occuring quite rapidly (if never rapidly enough), and that changes will occur. Unless, that is, the progressives decide that unless three percent of the population starts agreeing with them right now, they’re going to pick up their collective ball and go play with the Canadian Unitarian Council. If Beth Stroud hasn’t given up on the United Methodist Church–and she hasn’t–it would seem to be an act of ultimate bad faith for the rest of us to do so on her behalf.