Blaming the Bishop?

By Leland Spencer

On one level, I was at least disturbed and perhaps hurt when I read the UMNS story about Bishop Shamana's ruling that the California-Nevada conference's affirmation of clergy who conduct same-sex weddings is "void and of no effect." After all, I thought Bishop Shamana was an ally. I love the chapter about her in Bishop Craig's The Leading Women, especially because she created a name for herself in order to extricate herself from the patriarchy of traditional nomenclature. Furthermore, I thought for sure when I read her inspiring sermon from the 2004 General Conference that she was an ally in the movement for full inclusion. How, then, could she use the word "void" to describe the faithful witness of the conference over which she presides?

On a another level, I understand that her job as bishop is to offer a ruling based on the laws of the church. Therefore, she reached the conclusion she had to reach, and I don't think that surprises anyone. Of course the statement has no effect in the realm of church law, and its authors and supporters know that. I am certain that no one voting for the statement of support expected that statement alone to acquit pastors who are brought up on trial for violating church law by doing the ministry God calls them to do. The authors and supporters of the statement of support recognize that, in the words of MLK, "an unjust law is no law at all."

So where does that leave me? Well, I admit that I am still a little bit frustrated with the bishop. I know she had to issue the ruling that she issued--any literate bishop would--but I think she could have done it with more grace. "Void and of no effect" is harsh as well as redundant. I think my irritation in this situation echoes that of the Rev. Gayle Felton, who said in her sermon at the RMN convocation last summer, "I'm frustrated with bishops. If you can't be prophetic when you get to be a bishop, what are you waiting for?"

Additional coverage:
Ruling of Law (pdf)