Having said that, this post has the fewest points of the eight.
This is because I'm not trying to point out all the differences between the UMC and GMC. I'm focused only on what surprised me. You probably already know that the GMC will absolutely forbid ordination of a person who is married to another person of the same sex. So if you are hoping this post will be a "gotcha" lambasting the GMC for their discrimination you will be disappointed. There are some surprises, nevertheless.
Inclusion and Representation
1. Non-Representative Leadership: As I shared in the post on power, the Transitional Leadership Council (TLC) has an unprecedented amount of authority. Truly, I don't think think any person or small group has had this level of authority in Methodist history other than Wesley and Asbury. According to the latest draft of the Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline (BDD), there are 18 members of the TLC. A nineteenth, Bishop Mike Lowery, was recently added. The GMC has gone out of their way to stress the global nature of this new denomination. Most likely a majority of its membership will come from outside the U.S. Only 4 of the 19 members of the TLC, 21%, come from outside the U.S. The GMC has worked very hard to be clear that women will have equal standing to men. Only 3 of the 19 members are women, none of them women of color. The denomination is supposedly de-emphasizing bishops (although if you read my entry on bishops you'll see that is debatable in practice). With the addition of Bishop Lowery, there are as many bishops as central conference representatives. Of the 15 U.S. members, only four are people of color. To be clear, the UMC does not have a great track record on any of these either. We don't have a great record on inclusiveness on any way that we might group people. For me, the difference is that when you are creating something new you are not bound by the baggage of the past. This is a new chance for a new denomination to show us who they want to be. For me, the TLC representation fails the test.
2. Gender defined: This is not really a surprise, but it felt important to me to point it out anyway. Paragraph 306 is the token paragraph on inclusion (there is mention in other places of inclusion; that is the focus of this paragraph). Among other categories, it includes a commitment to inclusiveness regardless of gender, "defined throughout...by a person's immutable biological traits identified by or before birth." Once upon a time, this description would have made complete sense to me. For the sake of brevity, I'll point out only the most obvious example. Depending on who you read anywhere from .02% to 1.7% of the population is born "intersex." A clear gender cannot be assigned to them. What the TDD calls "immutable" is very literally "mutable." In as many as 2 of every 1,000 births, the doctor chooses what genitalia the child will present. As is the case in every area of LGBT+ inclusion, I'm convinced the GMC is ultimately putting off a conversation that they will eventually need to confront.
3. Inclusiveness Defined: Paragraph 306 also defines inclusiveness itself. The definition is both brilliant and infuriating. "...inclusiveness means the freedom for the total involvement of all persons who meet the requirements of our Book of Doctrines and Discipline in the membership and leadership of the Church at any level and in every place." In other words, inclusiveness means if we let you in you are in. If we don't let you in then you are out.
4. LGBT+ Leadership - As mentioned in my very first post, I appreciate that the GMC allows for greater organizational freedom for local churches. That comes from paragraph 337. That same paragraph does create a new restriction: "Members of the church's governing board... [must be] loyal to the ethical standards of the Global Methodist Church." The use of the word "ethical" here is interesting. We'll see later that, unlike the UMC, the GMC's version of the Social Principles is clearly part of their doctrine that must be obeyed. The word "ethic" is only used in the BDD one other time in a context that makes it clear ethics are identified as those principles (in that paragraph distinguished from doctrine and called "Social Witness"). Most of the 14 principles in the Social Witness are uncontroversial. By my reading, only inclusion and abortion would create much debate in the UMC. I think 337 makes it clear that if you are, to use our current language, a "self-avowed, practicing homosexual" you would not be eligible for any leadership role within the denomination or local church. After reading the whole BDD carefully, I think you would be able to be a member of a church (with the OK of the pastor). You would not be a member with all the rights of membership because now you would officially not be allowed into a lay leadership role.
I could say a whole lot more about LGBT+ inclusion. For starters, as is the case with our current Book of Discipline, essentially nothing is said regarding any of the initials other than "L" and "G". A person may identify as bisexual, be married to a peson of the opposite sex, and therefore be eligible to serve in all ways. A person who is transgender may argue that (following point 2 above) there are biological traits that could aid in a person's identity as transgender. There is no mention of any of the "+" groups in the abbreviation. But, again, the focus in this series is on what might surprise you, or at least what surprised me, that would be good to know.
Next time: five (or possibly six - still debating) - points regarding theology and sacraments.
David, in discussing the awesome power given to the Transitional Leadership Council, you said, "Truly, I don't think any person or small group has had this level of authority in Methodist history other than Wesley and Asbury." Depending on how you define "small," it might be important to remember that until the 1939 merger that created The Methodist Church" The Methodist Episcopal Church never included lay persons in its annual conferences. ALL decisions were made by the clergy. That strikes me as a lot of power vested in a relatively small group of people.
ReplyDeleteThat is small. 19 people is significantly smaller.
DeleteIt's also TRANSITIONAL, and their power ends with the convening General Conference. The challenge is the leading of the denomination in the time between formation and the convening GC. Your analysis ignores this.
DeleteI hope you'll take a minute to read points 1 and 7 here: https://revliv1.blogspot.com/2022/02/buyer-beware-gmc-book-of-doctrines-and.html
DeleteDid. It's a good Boogeyman for you to caricature. These folks are the same ones who have very humbly led us until this point. No one has any concerns about this group except someone from the outside who needs to find problems with a body he has no intention of joining nor taking seriously from the start. Very unbiased opinion?
DeleteI'm sorry you've wasted your time with reading these posts. Please feel free to do something else with your time.
DeleteNot to be glib, but when I read the last sentence in point 2 above - "As is the case in every area of LGBT+ inclusion, I'm convinced the GMC is ultimately putting off a conversation that they will eventually need to confront." - the Saturday Night Live character who held her fingers in her ears, saying, "La. la. la - I can't hear you!" came to mind.
ReplyDelete