In response to the recent ruling by the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church.
by Jennifer Soule, RMN Legal Counsel
On a personal level, it should be clear that my faith is in the true Spirit of God, the actual Nature of God, of which we are all a part. My faith is in the actual connectedness of the Reconciling people and in the growing realization that God's Grace is infinitely abundant and available to all. My faith can also be called Trust, that the unfolding Goodness is with us and will remain with us, if we have or gain the awareness to realize it. I do, often, consider the ministry of Jesus and I really do ask myself what would Jesus do. My faith is not, in contrast, in The United Methodist Church, or its ability to act in concert with what I know of the Nature of God. It seems to repeatedly demonstrate otherwise to me, and has for many years.
It has, again now, through a key branch of its government, demonstrated a kind of defiance of an awareness of what God really is. It has now engaged people in arguments about "law" that would be used to dispossess them of the loving embrace of a faith community within The United Methodist system, and it has turned them away. It did occur to me to ask myself while in New Orleans for the proceedings, what would Jesus think about a "church court?" What would Jesus think about analyzing the twists and turns and complications of a rather constrained and obtuse set of "church cases?" Is what I am doing in any way like what Jesus would have done? I think you might guess what I concluded from those questions. However, like my counterparts in the movement, I believe in justice and full inclusion and I have a commitment to working for those things. Even in this way. It is almost as if I cannot really believe that a church and that The United Methodist Church would affirm discrimination and exclusion toward LGBT people in the way it has been doing.
From my perspective, it is even more clear at this point that this institution is not a safe or welcoming place for LGBT people. I could not recommend it to friends, family or clients (such as my Reconciling family are to me). There was an opportunity here for the misguided institution to move forward, and to increase the availability of the church to all people. There was a nice range of opportunities, actually, from what should have been easy to what would have been a real step toward integrity with the ministry of Jesus. What has occurred is that even the easy, sure, plain steps were refused by this Judicial Council. It was widely recognized that Decision 1032 was completely baseless, unfounded in any church law, misguided, mean-spirited and utterly outside of the tradition (as we believed we knew it) of the church and church membership. For dissenting members from 1032 and newly elected members (elected as a response to 1032) to embrace 1032 now, and refuse to reconsider 1032 on its own motion, demonstrates that this newly formulated Judicial Council has abandoned even reason. Its limited finding on another docket item that the 2008 modification to Paragraph 225 was necessary to modify 1032 and, additionally, only modifies 1032 as to transferring members, overlooks that there was never a basis in the first place in the prior Paragraph 225 for discrimination against any category of prospective members based on status (in particular, homosexual status). This decision, in fact, gives credence under church law to the wrong premise announced in 1032 that authorized refusing church membership to homosexuals.
The more courageous step (only because the institution does not show much courage in general, and certainly not on the LGBT inclusion issue) would have been to accept the judicial function and apply the plain all-inclusive meaning of the Constitution, that denies discrimination based on any status and that is echoed in Paragraph 139, claiming that this church will not act with any semblance of discrimination. This was again deferred with, to use the words of our opponent from Good News, a "tortured" understanding of the words at hand and a shackled idea of the role of a Judicial body.
I had hoped for leadership and courage from this revered entity, and I am still sitting here wondering what happened to that and why this church seems to drain those qualities out of the active parts of its institutions that should be beacons of light for an expanding, embracing church. LGBT people are deferred again, and worse.
There will be a time of deep reflection, as there always is when profound discrimination occurs. It will take courage on our part to do this honestly. It is true that our effort itself was enough to proclaim our faith and our sense of what it means to see Jesus as the ideal example of Compassion and Love. It was in that sense a wonderful, fulfilling experience and great success! And I do not speak for RMN when I say that I think we need to ask ourselves to squarely face facts about whether The United Methodist Church can accommodate growth and inclusion, or whether it is now demonstrating a commitment to mere survival another way, a way that is out of integrity with its own Constitution. In other words, does the UMC have the actual capacity to accommodate inclusion?
All of this is good information for us to have, and to have now, and we can, each of us, determine what to do with it. Some will look to General Conference 2012 and beyond. Some will look to reorganizing the church's international structure to accommodate regional differences. Some will look to change closed hearts, doors and minds one at a time. I will tell you that, like in my secular job as a plaintiff's discrimination lawyer, when I see terrible and hurtful injustice, it causes a visceral reaction, and, often anger. When this kind of discrimination and injustice is coupled with lack of integrity - and by that I mean saying one thing (Constitution; Par. 139) and doing another (1032 and today's decisions), it is just that much worse, at least for me.
My work continues in other forums and places in the world at the moment! I presently have a case in which African-Americans, my clients, were denied admittance to an upscale night club because of the color of their skin. The employees were told not to allow more than 25% African-Americans in at any one given time. This is, also, outrageous discrimination. Businesses cannot discriminate in that way. Churches, on the other hand, can.
My prayer tonight is that the vulnerable people who may take the actions of the Church to be a rejection of them by God are held safe and are protected from further harm.
The Rev. Gilbert H. Caldwell is a retired United Methodist Minister who lives in Asbury Park, N.J. He was active in the Massachusetts unit of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and participated in the civil-rights movement throughout the nation. In 2000, he, with others, organized the RMN Extension ministry United Methodists of Color for a Fully Inclusive Church (UMOC), an organization committed to the full inclusion of LGBT people in every aspect of church and society. His recent book, Something Within: Works by Rev. Gilbert H. Caldwell is available from Church Within A Church.
Rev. Troy G. Plummer joined Reconciling Ministries Network as the executive director in November of 2003. RMN mobilizes United Methodists of all sexual orientations and gender identities to transform our Church and world into the full expression of Christ’s inclusive love. Troy organizes grassroots efforts coast-to-coast sharing an inclusive Gospel message. He coordinates biennial movement building convocations and provides leadership for LGBTQ equality through nonviolent witness and protest, legislative action, and coalition partnerships at the quadrennial General Conferences of the worldwide United Methodist Church. In 2007, he launched five-years of organizing campaigns to grow the movement.
Reconciling Ministries Network mobilizes United Methodists of all sexual orientations and gender identities to transform our Church and world into the full expression of Christ’s inclusive love.
