Nothing denotes the most basic difference between Lisa and me in matters of the practice of ministry than our attitude towards the United Methodist Church's stance on gays and lesbians in ministry. On the one hand, I believe that the Discipline provides enough wiggle room for homosexual clergy to serve with integrity, provided they abide by the rules - the Judicial Council of the Church has stated that both parts of the rule governing gay clergy, self-avowed and practicing, need to apply before disciplinary action is taken. On the other hand, I find it odd that the church discriminates against an entire class of individuals for the sole reason that they love differently from the rest of us. I have been saying for close to 20 years the entire "controversy" would end if the clergy in just one Annual Conference - pick one, it doesn't matter - would stand in unison and declare their sexual orientation and dare the Church to kick them out (it might help if a bishop or two joined them). For all practical purposes, some of the best, brightest, more creative pastors would be on the brink. There would also be a dearth of clergy, and the Church would find itself in the interesting position of needing an influx of new talented, gifted individuals to serve. For my money, pragmatism would win out, and the whole issue would die in that moment.
Lisa, on the other hand, being the pastoral person she is, empathizes with those who are uncomfortable with the issue. She hears people who say they wish, not that gay people or clergy would go away, but that the issue would go away. In the late 1990's, the VA Conference declared a moratorium on discussing the issue, and while there was an outcry, Lisa liked it because she believed then and believes now (rightly, I might add) that it is peripheral to the concerns of most church-going folk.
Yet, the issue will not go away, nor do I believe it should. Just because most members in the pews are not exercised by their disgust at same-sex people preaching and serving communion does not mean that the discriminatory practices of the church are therefore inconsequential. As more and more high-profile cases of gay clergy coming out emerge, the issue will continue to sharpen. At the United Methodist Church's website, there is a story about the Rev. Kathleen Weber, who outed herself during a September 30, 2007 worship service at Blaine Memorial United Methodist Church in downtown Seattle.
Now, some might think this a really stupid thing to do (I believe that Lisa would be one, but she's still asleep so I can't ask her). For myself, I think we need more and more of this kind of thing. If one admits one's sexual orientation up front, and declares oneself still to be a person given the gifts and grace for the practice of ministry, the onus is upon not just the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry, but the entire Church to figure out why, exactly, a person should be denied ordination simply for being who one is as created by God.
If a person believes him- or herself called to ordained pastoral ministry, and after the increasingly rigorous (even invasive) candidacy process finds that call affirmed by one's local church, one's District Committee on Ordained Ministry, and one's Conference Board of Ordained Ministry, I do believe that the weight of presumption that something is amiss is upon the Church, not the individual.
We need to see more, not less, of this kind of thing. The end of discrimination in the Church will only come through action, not through negotiation.
