The Verdict

Last month’s United Methodist Church’s (UMC) Judicial Council decision that Karen Oliveto’s consecration as bishop was a violation of church law left people on both sides of the issue disappointed, to some respect. To conservatives, the ruling did not go far enough, since it failed to remove Oliveto from office for being legally married to another woman. Progressives could cheer for that same reason, but the issue is far from resolved.

In trying to figure out just what the Judicial Council did say on the matter, I slogged through its Decision No. 1341 myself (with thanks to Lonnie Brooks, Richard Marsh, and Keith Boyette for their analyses, and apologies to any non-Methodists for the UMC jargon).

While everyone knew that the petition related to Karen Oliveto’s election and consecration by the Western Jurisdiction in July 2016, neither she nor the Jurisdiction were named in the petition. The petitioner, Dixie Brewster of the South Central Jurisdiction, requested a Declaratory Decision on the legality of the nomination, election, consecration and/or assignment as a bishop of someone who is in a legal same-sex marriage

Like many high court decisions, this one was splintered, as the Judicial Council claimed it only had authority to rule against the bishop’s consecration, which is an act of the entire church. The nomination, election, and assignment of bishops lie within the authority of the Western Jurisdiction, where Oliveto remains an elder in good standing, because no charges have been filed against her.

The petition requested clarity on several chargeable offenses by which UMC clergy may be tried. Here are the Council’s rulings on each type of offense (along with the UMC Book of Discipline paragraph references for other UMC geeks).

Par. 2702.1a: Clergy may be charged with immorality if they are not “celibate in singleness” or “faithful in a heterosexual marriage.” However, the Council ruled, it says nothing about faithfulness in a legal same-sex marriage. Unless proven to be unfaithful (or unmarried!), this clause would not apply to Oliveto.

Par. 2702.1b: Clergy may be charged with being a “self-avowed practicing homosexual” or performing same-sex marriages. While performing same-sex marriages are verifiable by public record, the UMC policy on clergy’s sexual orientation and practice to this point could be described as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” UMC policy has focused on sexual practice, allowing for lesbians and gay men to be ordained if they remain celibate or closeted.

Here Decision No. 1341 has wide implication. The public nature of legal same-sex marriage negates the “don’t ask, don’t tell” stance that has allowed gay persons to fly under the radar. The decision claims that clergy who marry someone of the same sex essentially “out” themselves, and are thus “self-avowed” homosexuals. It further notes that because sexual relationships are a natural part of marriage, those in legal same-sex marriages can be assumed to be “practicing” homosexuals unless rebutted and proven otherwise.

Par. 2702.1d: If someone who is in a same-sex marriage is elected and consecrated a bishop, the Council said, that person would be disobedient to the Order and Discipline of the UMC, as would the bishops who consecrated the person.

So, where does this leave us?

The conservative magazine Good News expressed their “dismay” over the “convoluted and ultimately unsatisfactory ruling” because it did not remove someone in such clear violation of church policy. The unnamed bishop remains in good standing unless an investigation at the jurisdictional level finds that person in violation of one or more chargeable offenses.

Progressives are well aware that Oliveto’s consecration is a violation of church law, but their goal is to overturn what they see as an unjust law. With Oliveto still in office and in good standing, they may appear to have won this particular battle, however, they know that the conflict is not over. They can be sure that further charges will be filed, using the detailed roadmap for the process that the Council articulated in the decision.

The decision also illustrates the complexity of human sexuality and the difficulty of regulating behavior that belongs behind closed bedroom doors.

By focusing on “practice,” the UMC acknowledges that we do not choose our sexual identity, but we do choose how we will live as sexual beings, and in the process, the church fences monogamous, heterosexual marriage as the only acceptable venue for sexual expression. You’ll notice that in writing about the UMC history of this issue, I do not use the acronym LGBTQI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex), which reflects the range and complexity of sexual identities. Instead, I address the UMC’s sole concern with those who are openly engaged in same-sex sexual activity, regardless of their gender or sexual identity.

The policy raises the ongoing and somewhat delicate question of what qualifies as same-sex “behavior.” Again, the focus on heterosexual relationships assumes that intercourse is the norm, leaving out the wide range of sexual activities from hugging and kissing to fondling and other activities that, with or without penetration, seek to bring the participants to orgasm.

I’ll stop there, but you see the difficulty. In using the euphemistic term “practice,” the church has legislated against behavior that it has not explored in depth and categorically rejects without clearly defining. In essence, the church has said, “We don’t want to know the details, but whatever it is, you can’t do it!”

What should be a private matter between two adults who commit to love, care, and provide for each other, and who are legally joined, has become the line that could exclude someone as gifted as Karen Oliveto from being bishop, or even clergy. In her removal, should it come, we would lose someone who is eminently qualified for the episcopacy, and the sole voice in the Council of Bishops with personal insights on this critical issue.

As I argue in my book, the adamant nature of resistance to fully including LGBTQI persons reflects a deeper resistance to changes in institutions that proscribe our social identity, specifically heterosexual marriage. As same-sex relationships become normalized in the larger society, it becomes even more important to some within the church that it uphold traditional social structures that are viewed as being ordained by God. The longer this stance continues, the more likely it is that the UMC will be seen as irrelevant, especially by young people who have come of age in a much different era.