Disappointing But Not Surprising

Bishop Oliveto (right) and her wife, Robin Ridenour

The LORD is a stronghold for the oppressed, 
a stronghold in times of trouble.
And those who know your name 
put their trust in you, 
for you, O LORD, 
have not forsaken those who seek you.
Psalm 9:9-10

On Thursday the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church rejected an appeal by the bishops of the Western Jurisdiction to reverse its ruling against the election and consecration of Bishop Karen Oliveto last summer (2016). The Judicial Council is our version of the Supreme Court. In matters of church law they have the final say.

The news is disappointing, but not surprising. It did not seem likely that the people who made the initial ruling earlier this spring would have a sudden Epiphany and see light where just a few months ago they had seen only darkness.

But one always hopes.

The news came to me from John Scott Lomperis, writing in the (oddly titled) “Juicy Ecumenism” blog of the Institute on Religion and Democracy. The IRD is a very conservative group that has been working hard for four decades to undermine the foundations of several Protestant denominations, most notably the United Methodist Church.

“Today,” wrote Lomperis, “I and others received official notification that our denomination’s supreme court, the Judicial Council, had unanimously decided to reject the request from the Western Jurisdiction bishops to reverse their April ruling against the attempt by this increasingly schismatic, numerically tiny region of the United Methodist Church to elevate an openly partnered lesbian activist to be bishop.”

The Western Jurisdiction is trying to live into the Kingdom of God by modeling a more inclusive ministry than what is prescribed in our United Methodist Book of Discipline. Although Lomperis sees it differently, their goal is not to cause schism, but to effect change. The traditionalists, on the other hand, seem to actually want to split the church. And they want the split to come sooner, rather than later, because they can see the movement within the UMC in the United States toward greater acceptance and affirmation of LGBTQ persons as full participants in the life of the church.

His description of Bishop Oliveto as “an openly partnered lesbian activist” is true, but it is not the whole picture. She is a gifted leader, a great preacher, an effective pastor, and an Elder who is by every measure well equipped to her new calling as a Bishop in the church.

In his second paragraph Lomperis makes an important point and then shows us an unpleasant side of this debate.

He notes that “the Judicial Council’s complex ruling ultimately took away any foundation in UMC church law for Dr. Karen Oliveto of San Francisco to indefinitely remain a bishop in good standing, and how more broadly, this ruling fundamentally reshaped our church law to remove what had previously been major barriers to defrocking clergy unwilling to abide by our denomination’s biblical standards for sexual self-control.”

He’s right that the ruling “fundamentally reshaped our church law.” It re-wrote the Discipline, something which the Judicial Council is not supposed to do. And something which traditionalists should oppose.

The unpleasant side is revealed in that last sentence about “defrocking clergy unwilling to abide by our denomination’s biblical standards for sexual self-control.”

Biblical standards for self-control? He means that gay clergy must be celibate whether they are married or not.

The rest of the post is just a series of snarky misleading half-truths about Bishop Oliveto. 

Unfortunately, he reports, “none of this appears to matter to the bishops and other leaders of the Western Jurisdiction or to anyone of whom I am aware in liberal-caucus circles. It seems they are absolutely determined to stand behind their efforts to elevate Oliveto no matter how deeply and widely she and they hurt the church, because her being a partnered lesbian evidently trumps every other consideration.”

No. 

Bishop Oliveto was not elected because she is gay and married. 

And she was not elected in spite of the fact that she is gay and married.

She was elected because the delegates saw her as the most qualified leader.

This new ruling from the Judicial Council brings us one step closer to schism. It was not unexpected, but it is deeply disappointing. 

Thank you for reading. Your thoughts and comments are always welcome. Please feel free to share on social media as you wish. 

Love Is on Trial

Bishop Karen Oliveto (left) greets Dixie Brewster (right) prior to the opening of oral arguments before the United Methodist Judicial Council meeting in Newark, N.J.  At rear is the Rev. Keith Boyette, representing Brewster before the council. (Photo by Mike DuBose, UMNS

And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
I Corinthians 13:13

According to Paul, “Love never ends.” It is eternal.

In a very real sense, it is love which is on trial as the United Methodist Judicial Council meets in Newark, New Jersey, this week.

Technically, it is about a motion made by Dixie Brewster, a laywoman from Milton, Kansas, and passed by the South Central Jurisdiction, which asks the court to declare invalid the election of Karen Oliveto as a Bishop by the Western Jurisdiction.

The contention of Brewster's petition is that since Bishop Oliveto is married to another woman, Robin Ridenour, she must be considered a “self-avowed practicing homosexual” and therefore in violation of the Book of Discipline and ineligible for election as bishop.

In a Washington Post article, Susan Hogan reports that “The two women greeted one another and shook hands before Tuesday’s hearing.” At a press conference after yesterday’s session, Bishop Oliveto was asked why she had sought out Ms. Brewster. She said that if we cannot love one another and show love for one another, then we are not witnessing for Christ.

In his opening presentation, the Rev. Keith Boyette, an ordained elder in the Virginia Conference and an attorney representing the South Central Jurisdiction, argued that  the “nomination, election, consecration, and  assignment of Karen Oliveto as bishop” violates church law and is, therefore, “null, void, and of no effect.”

As evidence that Bishop Oliveto was in fact a “self-avowed practicing homosexual,” Rev. Boyette presented a copy of the marriage license of Bishop Oliveto and her wife, Robin Ridenour.

My colleague Will Green, who is attending the hearing, commented eloquently on the use of the marriage license as evidence against Bishop Oliveto.

“This made me remember a conversation I had with Karen years ago when we were talking about performing same-sex weddings. She told me that out of all the weddings she has ever performed, she has noticed that the only couples who have copies of their marriage license framed and hanging up in their homes are all same-sex couples. This is a reminder that the ministry we have to offer is more valuable and beautiful than we can ever realize. She encouraged me to feel joy in performing weddings of same-sex couples because people who have had to fight and suffer to be able to celebrate their love are people it should be a special honor to minister to. 

“Knowing that Karen & Robin's wedding license was being submitted to the Judicial Council as ‘exhibit 1’ made it clearer than ever that this church treats our love as nothing more than evidence to be used against us.”

This tells you everything you need to know about the case. If love is used as the evidence against Bishop Oliveto, then it is easy to see which side we need to be on.

In conversation with a group of friends, I was talking about the argument brought by Rev. Boyette and the South Central Jurisdiction, that marriage is a romantic relationship and therefore a marriage between two women is evidence that they are “practicing” homosexuals. A recently divorced woman laughed ruefully. “Marriage isn’t always romantic,” she said. “And I can tell you about a celibate marriage.”

We laughed with her, but we also felt her pain.

A marriage license tells us that two people are married. It doesn’t tell us anything about their relationship. We may hope that being married would be much more than a legal contract, but we cannot know that.

My hope for Robin Ridenour and Karen Oliveto, and for every other couple, is that they are head over heels in love with each other. That they love each other deeply, intellectually, spiritually, physically, and emotionally.

And if they are blessed with that kind of love, then it is bizarre beyond words to use it against them.

Thank you for reading. Your thoughts and comments are always welcome. Please feel free to share on social media as you wish.