Methodist Bishops Call BS on Patriarchy

Yesterday, we trolled the Southern Baptists pretty hard for their continued support (or at least passive dismissal) of Paige Patterson. Today, I’m going to pick on the Methodists. Which I hate to do. I love Methodists! They were one of the first denominations to ordain women, my son went to a Methodist preschool that was straight-up amazing, and I have many clergy colleagues who still hang their hat (or stole, as it were) with the UMC.

That said, what the actual duck (as my autocorrect suggested I text my friend Shanna this morning) is wrong when their annual conference will not pass an amendment affirming the equality of women and girls in the life of the church.

What. The actual. Duck.

I joke about trolling the Methodists, but casting a critical eye on the will of the convention is in no way disparaging of the denomination as a whole. Lord knows, I take the same approach to my own denomination (and yours!) when it comes to policy or credal issues that make sweeping statements about the worth of large demographics of humans. The truth is, all of our larger Church institutions are products of the same bullshit patriarchy that has plagued us for centuries. And until we can faithfully and consistently name that and call it out, it’s not going away.

So today, we’re going to name it and call it out. Nothing against the Methodists, per se. It’s just their turn today.

Because, like I say, their annual conference failed to pass a few constitutional amendments yesterday that would affirm and protect the equal status of women … and in a real “what the duck” moment of church politicking, it failed to gain the two-thirds majority it needed to pass. And today, we’d like to know why.

One of the amendments that failed contained language stating “that both men and women are made in the image of God and that we will confront and seek to eliminate discrimination against women and girls …” Shocking! Scandalous controversy! Who could possibly take issue with this in 2018, in a denomination that has ordained women for more than 100 years?

Amendment #2, which also failed, contained the following: “… nor shall any member be denied access to an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of the Church because of race, color, gender, national origin, ability, age, marital status, or economic condition.”

At first glance, there is nothing controversial here. But given the fact that the UMC has been in a heated battle over LGBT inclusion in the life of the church—and specifically, in the order of ministry—for the better part of a decade, I can see how some nuances within these amendments might have made some folks uncomfortable.

For instance, “marital status …” That’s a loaded term in the fight for LGBT equality, and within the church, especially when the hierarchy is arguing over whether or not the clergy can perform same-sex unions. Perhaps some of the people who voted against these seemingly tame amendments were afraid it was code for a gay thing they weren’t quite ready to affirm?

There’s also the word “gender,” which should come with a trigger warning these days, in certain circles. Could it be that any allusion to gender, no matter how straightforward its intention, could awaken discomfort about transgender rights in the church and cause people to vote “nay?” Some say that’s exactly what happened here.

It does make sense … I guess. At least, I can see how something that appears so benign would bear greater implications for culture shifts the Church is not ready to face.

You know what? That is bullshit patriarchy as well.

If these measures truly failed because leaders feared an opening of the gay floodgates, then it goes to show that knee-jerk homophobic reactions can often drive major policy decisions. Even if that reality helps to make “sense” of why such a measure would be rejected, it still bears witness to the power of Patriarchy within the life of the Church; anything that is not distinctly straight, cisgender, white and male in its worldview is dismissed out of hand as dangerous and disruptive. Anything that alludes to some shift in the masculine power base is a thing to be feared. And, full stop, that is not going to fly in any organization that exists primarily to uphold its own privilege.

Again, I’m not picking on Methodists in particular. It’s just their turn today. Truth is, organized religion as we know it was created, by design, to protect male power and voice. And, as such, the Church as we know it is largely responsible for the ongoing subjugation of women in every area of public life. I kind of just wrote a book about all that.

Point is, this is not just a UMC problem. This is a Body of Christ problem. Tomorrow it will be somebody else’s turn. And the next day, and the next day after that. Until we call bullshit enough to change something.

On that note, the Women Bishops of the UMC got together and wrote this powerful letter to their Church. It is literally an epistle, in the truest sense of the word, and it’s just too bad sometimes that the canon was closed years ago. By a bunch of men. Go figure.

Read their words as your act of resistance for the day. UMC Sisters: we hear you. We see you. We’re with you, and we’re not ever going to shut up about this until all are present and accounted for at the table.

At all our tables.