We Shall Not Be Moved

Methodists Debate Race, Gender, and Homosexuality

Nickell

• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781630875121
• Topic: Teología y religión
• Subtopic: Religión

As Protestant denominations are fracturing over whether to ordain gays and lesbians, this work looks at The United Methodist Church's conversations about the issue, in light of Methodism's historic contests over the leadership of African Americans and women, to see what can be learned from these earlier periods of change. Using the uniform context of the Methodist General Conference, where denominational policy is set, the book analyzes transcripts of floor debates in key years of these struggles, letting those who argued for and against the changes speak for themselves.Those arguments are read through the lens of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, whose theory offers a sophisticated model that goes deeper than simple "resistance to change" in articulating a dialectic between social structures and agents that predisposes both to reproduce existing power relationships. This interdisciplinary, historical study seeks to move beyond conscious motivations for the exclusion of these three groups and uncover deeply embedded, misrecognized social dynamics. In exploring these groups' stories, this book examines who holds power in Methodist churches, how changes in authority structures occur, and why it is such a long and painful process.

1

Intransigent Leadership Patterns

Theory and Context

“Prophetic discourse makes descend from heaven that which it projects there from earth.”

—Pierre Bourdieu

Introduction to Key Questions

In 2011, thirty-six retired bishops in The United Methodist Church (UMC) issued a statement calling on the church to remove its ban on ordaining gays and lesbians. They cited a number of reasons, among them the strain on closeted pastors, on active bishops who are forced to indict those who “come out,” and on gay United Methodists who feel called to ministry but whose church gives them no acceptable options. They mentioned the loss of members, gay and straight, especially young adults who are embarrassed to invite friends to church. The bishops expressed “dismay at the unwillingness of our United Methodist Church to alter its 39-year exclusionary stance.” Using the language of a contrite sinner, the bishops noted the church’s shame and repentance for past prohibitions based on race, gender, and ethnicity, and wrote: “We believe the God we know in Jesus is leading us to issue this counsel and call—a call to transform our church life and our world.” 1

Soon thereafter, Black Methodists for Church Renewal endorsed the bishops’ statement at their annual meeting, and nine black clergy and scholars of the UMC issued their own statement against the bigotry and injustice that they felt the ban on gay clergy represents. These scholars named their familiarity with discrimination, even within their own church, and wrote that it was nothing new to see “imperfect humans draped in an august array of Christian doctrines uttering an allegiance to ‘scriptural authority’ and ‘natural law.’” They admitted to being in the uncomfortable position of speaking against other African Americans who have “joined ranks with those who spew bigotry” and were now “wielding doctrine and scripture as their tools just as was done during slavery and the Jim Crow era.” They went on to quote the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who said in his eulogy of civil rights activist James Reeb, that “he was murdered by the irrelevancy of a church that will stand amid social evil and serve as a taillight rather than a headlight, an echo rather than a voice.”2 The scholars stated that the UMC had missed its opportunity to be a headlight for gay rights and must now catch up to the larger society.

These statements by United Methodist bishops and scholars reflect the tensions within the UMC since the church instituted language in 1972 that homosexuality3 is “incompatible with Christian teaching,” and they echo the stress that lingers from the church’s historic restrictions against leadership by African Americans and women. These statements and the groups that made them raise the issues addressed in this book, namely: Who holds power in the UMC and its predecessor bodies,4 not just to lead churches, but to decide who those leaders will be? How do changes in authority structures occur, and why is it such a long and painful process? Finally, how are the stories of marginalized groups within the church interrelated?

The United Methodist Church currently prohibits the ordination of gays and lesbians and the blessing of same-sex unions. Those who support these policies claim that scripture clearly indicates God’s disapproval of homosexuality. Yet biblical scholars have pointed out that the handful of passages cited are difficult to interpret and address the issue of same-sex behavior, rather than more recent understandings of sexual orientation. By contrast, the UMC takes a moderate position on divorce and remarriage, which are likewise condemned in scripture.

A look at Methodist history reveals equally strong and persistent opposition to the ordination of women and to allowing African Americans to have leadership over white Methodists. After decades of debate and division, the institutional barriers to these two groups collapsed. But although segregation ended in 1968 and women gained full clergy rights in 1956, the ranks of the ordained in the UMC remain 86 percent white and 77 percent male.5 Such figures suggest entrenched resistance that persists decades after authority structures were changed.

The theory of Pierre Bourdieu (1930–2002) offers insights into the ongoing resistance to religious leadership by these marginalized groups. Bourdieu explores the subtle and often unconscious dynamics of social domination, through which those in power and those outside of it are socialized to see certain groups in religious leadership—in this case white, presumably heterosexual6 men. While this social arrangement seems natural, even inevitable, Bourdieu’s theory reveals that the privileging of this group over others is not based on ability or gift but is, in fact, arbitrary. The complexity of the socialization process, as well as its subconscious nature, explains how people can be unaware of the roots of their resistance to changes in the social order and their reliance on ideologies such as religion to explain, or legitimate, it. Once a social structure is understood as God’s intended plan, deviation is seen as a threat to divine order. Furthering that sense of threat, the church has confronted these issues during periods of social change, when new ways of thinking challenged traditional worldviews.

The history of American Methodism7 parallels the history of the country, so it has confronted the leadership of these groups at the same time the nation was dealing with various rights campaigns. Indeed, it was often pressure from these external movements that forced change within the church. The church embraces theological, political, and racial diversity, and, like the United States, it decides policy through a delegated body—the General Conference. This book examines debates at these quadrennial General Conferences, which offer a window into the life of the church at various points in its history and a key to understanding the resistance of church members to changes in authority structures.

Methodism remains the second largest Protestant denomination in the country and embraces diverse theological and political perspectives. Other denominations are more homogenous, such as the right leaning Southern Baptist Convention, or have fractured over the issue of sexual orientation. The Episcopal Church is most famous for the conflict that ensued when it consecrated Gene Robinson, an openly gay bishop, in 2003, but the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) and Presbyterian Church (USA) (PCUSA) have also lost members over their pro-gay policies. In each case new, more conservative denominations or movements have arisen where congregations that want to maintain traditional authority patterns may affiliate.8 That this issue is prompting a re-formation of American Protestantism indicates that it is a symptom of much deeper division. Using the lens of social theory, this look at historical conflicts over church leadership seeks to unmask and examine that division.

American Methodism

Methodism began as a renewal movement in the Church of England in the eighteenth century, led by John Wesley and his brother Charles, both Anglican priests. The brothers themselves made an unsuccessful mission trip to Georgia in 1836, but the American movement began in earnest in the 1760s. In 1784, American Methodists declared their independence from the British movement and became The Methodist Episcopal Church (MEC). Within a few decades, the church had lost many of its African American members, who formed separate denominations in 1816 (African Methodist Episcopal Church, or AMEC) and in 1821 (African Methodist Episcopal Church, Zion, AMEZC). The MEC itself split in 1844, as southern Methodists seceded to become The Methodist Episcopal Church, South (MECS), with slavery among the issues that prompted the divide. Smaller denominations broke away over conflicts with the larger bodies, including The Methodist Protestant Church (MPC) in 1828.

In the twentieth century, Methodists began talks of reunion, which required discussion of geographic differences related to racial issues. The early feminist movement overlapped with these tensions, prompting debate about women’s leadership in the church. Differences were ironed out, and in 1939, the MEC, the MECS, and the MPC merged to form The Methodist Church (MC). The church grew even larger in 1968 when it merged with the Evangelical United Brethren Church (EUBC) to become the current United Methodist Church (UMC). It was following this merger that the new church began to deal with the issue of gay rights, again following the trend of the larger U.S. society.

Consistent throughout its history is the church’s connectional nature, through which bishops appoint pastors to serve at local churches, as opposed to congregational polity in which churches call their own pastors. Methodist clergy “in full connection” agree to itinerancy, going wherever the church appoints them and are guaranteed an appointment to serve one or more churches, moving on to a new appointment whenever the bishop determines it is in the best interest of the congregation and/or the pastor. This connection requires sufficient agreement on leadership criteria, since a pastor could theoretically be appointed to serve anywhere within the denomination. Practically, clergy are affiliated with a geographic region, but even within such an area there is often a range of opinions on how the church should confront changing times and who should qualify for leadership.

Another aspect of Methodist connectionalism is the conference, through which polity is set. Originally comprising only clergy, Methodist conferences evolved to include both lay and clergy delegates, and today include ...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Chapter 1: Intransigent Leadership Patterns
• Chapter 2: Methodist Unification and Race
• Chapter 3: Resistance to Women’s Ordination
• Chapter 4: Emergence of Anti-Gay Policy
• Chapter 5: Looking Back, Looking Forward
• Bibliography